Download - DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 281 886 TM 870 ... (BAB) ***** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ... 11 F. Mannix J1P-ke S. Rankin HOtaborto

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 281 886 TM 870 300

TITLE Connecticut Education Evaluation and RemedialAssistance: Grade 4 Mastery Test Results. Summary andInterpretations: 1985-86.

INSTITUTION Connecticut State Dept. of Education, Hartford.PUB DATE [86]NOTE I30p.PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (14I) -- Statistical Data (110)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Academic Standards; Achievement Tests; Behavioral

Objectives; *Grade 4; Language Arts; *Mastery Tests;Mathematics; Remedial Programs; School Districts;*Scores; Scoring; *State Programs; *TestConstruction; *Testing Programs; WritingEvaluation

IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut; Degrees of Reading Power

ABSTRACTThe Connecticut Mastery Test was designed to assess

specific skill levels of students by measuring performance on variouslearning objectives that students can be expected to master. Thegrade 4 Connecticut Mastery Test, given for the first time in thefall of 1985, provides information which can be used to impróveinstruction and the basic skills in mathematics and language arts.This report covers: (1) the legislative background; (2) the masterytest development process, including test construction, pilot tests,surveys and mastery test content; (3) Setting mastery standards byobjective, including remedial (grant) Standards; (4) testadministration and scoring, including testing guidelines, scoring ofthe language arts and mathematics test, scoring of the writingsample, analytic scoring, and scoring of the Degrees of Reading Power(DRP) test; (5) reporting of the school district tett results; and(6) Fall 1985 statewide mastery test results for mathematics andlanguage arts, with test results by district and participation rateresults. Supporting data and information are included in charts andappendices. (BAB)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.***********************************************************************

CONNECTICUTEDUCATION EVALUATIONAND REMEDIAL ASSISTANCE

GRADE 4MASTERY MST RESULTSSUMMARY AND INTERPRETATIONS1935-86

BEST* COPY AVAILABLE

"PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

i

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)."

OEPARTMENTOF EDUCATIONOffoce of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL-RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

)4!hos documentMsbeen teProduced aseterved _from the person or orgaruzation

originating st. -0 Minor changes nave been made to improve

reproducbon quahty

Pomts-ol view or OPorhonsstated in thisdocu-ment do not necesaardy represent officialOERI position or pohcy

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION2

SV.e of ConnecticutWi-L-Llam A. O'Neill, Governor

BoatO of Education

AbF4ham Glassman, Gba.irmanJame J. Szerejko Vice ChairmanA. Niter Esdaile143/-tn J. FoleyDor°thy C. Gotidt4inRi-C4 L. HendeIj01:11 F. MannixJ1P-ke S. Rankin

HOtaborto Solano

No7lle Foreman GlaSg91.7 (ex officio)CoMiasioner of Higher Education

Ga7-71t1 N. TirozziC002'lesioner of Educatton

Fr011k A. Altieri

13ePuty Commissioner__ahd Operations

Loaiao m; AronsonOW3ty. commissioner

ServicesPragtam and Support

ConnecticutEducation Evaluation and Remedial Assistance

GRADE 4 MASTERY TEST RESULTS

SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATIONS: 1985-86

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

CONTENTS

ForewordAcknowledgements vii

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

OVERVIEW OF THE MASTERY TEST DEVELOPMENT PROCESSTest Construction

Pilot TestsSurvey

Mastery Test Content

1

3

4

4

SETTING MASTERY STANDARDS BY OBJECTIVE 5

Setting Remedial (Grant) Standards 6

TEST ADMINISTRATION_AND SCORING 7

Testing Guidelines: Grade Four Connecticut Mastery Test 8

Scoring of the Language Arts and Mathematics Test 8

Scoring of the Writing Sample 8

Analytic Scoring 11Scoring of the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test 11

SCHOOL DISTRICT TEST RESULTS REPORTING 11

FALL 1985 STATEWIDE MASTERY TEST RESULTS 12Mathematics 12

Language Arts 12Test_Results_by District 17

PartiCipatiOn Rate Results 17

Charts

Chart 1: Mathematics: Percent of StudentsAchieving Mastery for Each Objective 13

Chart 2: Language Arts: Percent of StudentsAchieving Mastery for Each Objective 14

Chart : Writing Sample: Percent of Students at Each Score Point 15Chart 4: Degrees of Reading Power: Percent of Students

at Selected Ranges of DRP Unit Scores 16

Appendices

Appendix A: Grade Four Mathematics Objectives 19Appendix B: Grade Four Language Arts Objectives 21

Appendix C: Remedial (Grant) Standard-Setting Process 23Appendix D: Marker Papers for Holistic Scoring 29

Appendix E: Analytic Rating Guide and Marker Papersfor Analytic Scoring 37

Appendix F: Sample Grade Four Mastery Test Score Reports 61Appendix G: Number of Objectives Mastered 73

Appendix H: Fall 1985 Grade 4 State by District Report: Mathematics 77Appendix I: Fall 1985 Grade 4 State by District Report: Language Arts 85

Appendix J: Type of Community Classifications 93Appendix K: Student Participation Rates 95

5

FOREWORD

Oneof my highest priorities and a very central aspect of Connecticut'IsChallenge: An _Agenda forEducational Equity and Excellence is theimplementation of the statewide mastery_ cesting program in mathematics andlanguage arts; including listening, reading and writing, for grades 4, 6, and8; The testing program is designed to assess specific skill levels ofstudents by measuring performance on various learning objectives that studentsreasonably can be expected to have mastered by the end of grades 3; 5, and 7.

The results of the Connecticut Mastery Test at three grade levels will beuseful in evaluating:

individual student performance in mathematics and language arts;

the effectivenesslanguage arts; arid

instructional programs ±n mathematics and

the effectiveness of the remedial assistance programs in mathematicsand language arts.

The grade 4_Connecticut Mastery_ Test,_given _for the_first time in_the fall of1985, provides valuable educational information which can be used to improveinstruction and the basic skills of Connecticut's students; The test resultshave_helped local districts to reexamine curriculum and to identify studentswho have not mastered certain skills. The grade 6 and grade 8 ConnecticutMastery Tests will be given_for the first time in the fall of 1986, along withthe second administration of the grade 4 mastery test.

I encourage you to carefully review the mastery test results provided at-thestudent, classroom and district levels. The Department is prepared to assistlocal school districts in the areas of curriculum and professional development.

Gerald N. TirozziCommissioner of Education

6

MASIERY TEST IMPLEMENTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Thomas_Jokubaitis,iChair; Wolcott Public SchoolsGerry Brown-SprInger;_New Britain Public SchoolsBenjamin_Oixon;_Bluomfield Public SOools _

Timothy Doyle, Regional School District No. 4Richard Dubow, Wilton, ConnectitutCharles Guinta. Walden Book Co., Inc.Cosby Marable Hamden Public SchoolsJohanna_Murphy; Hartford_Connecticut _Olive Niles _Ealt Hartford; ConnecticutPhilip Pelosi; Watertown Publit_SchoolsEdward Reidy, West Hartford Public SchoolsLouis Saloom, -Meriden Public SchoolsMark WaxenberT, East Hartford Public SchoolsLauren Weisberg-Kaufman; CI Business to Industry Assoc.

MATHEMATICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Steve Leinwand, Chair, CT Department of EducationLinda Ball; Glastonbury Public SchoolsPat Banning, Windham Public SchoolsMitchell Chester, Suffield Public SchoolsWalter Clearwaters; Naval Underwater Sys. Ctr.Tony Ditrio; Norwalk Public_Schools _

Leroy OUpee; Bridgeport Public SchoolsDavid Howell, New Haven Public SchoolsHilda Negron, Hartford Public SchoolsNary Ann Papa, West Hartford Public SchoolsJoanne Parr, Bloomfield Public Schools_Php Pelosi, Watertown_Publie-_SehoolsHelen Prescott, Ashford Public SchoolsJoyce Reilly, Meriden PUblic SchoolsJan Siegel, Ridgefield Public SchoolsDolores Vecchiarelli, Westport Public-SchoolsSylvia Webb, Middletown Public SchoolsBetsy_Carter, CT Department of Education_Marcia Kenefick; CT Department of Education

BIAS ADVISORY COPMITIEE

New London

Lillian Cruz Chair, CT Department of EducationBenjamin Dixon, Bloomfield Public_Schools _

MClaudina_Fabregas Bridgeport Public SehoolSJanet_C;_Huber; Windham_Public SthoolsRita Jackson, Stamford Public SchoolsSusan McCarthy-Miller, South Windsor Public SchoolsHarriet McComb, Yale Child Study CenterRonald S. McMullen; New Haven_Public SchoolsJames ri_Plitchell; Groton Public SchoolsAngel fluniz;_Bridgeport Public SthoolsLyn Nevins, Cooperative Educational ServicesRobert Pitacco, Hartford Public SchoolsRosa Quezada, New Havc Public SchoolsNelson Quinby, Regional School District lio; 9

-vi

,

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LANGUAGE ARTS ACcISORY CDOIMITTEE

Robert_Kinder; ChairCI Department of EducationRuth Allen, Western CT State Univers:tyEvelyn Burnham, Colebrook Public SchoolsSue Deffenbaugh, West Hartford Public SchoolsMartin Espinola Granby Public-SchoolsMary Fisher, Thompson Public_Schools _

Narguerite_Fuller; Bridgeport Public SChoolsJohn Hennelly; Dld Saybrook_Public SchoolsJane Jaaskela; Brooklyn Public SchoolsJean Klein; Newtown Public SchoolsDltve Niles_, East Hartford; ConnecticutJacqueline-Noreen-Trumbull Public SchoolsCarol_Parmelee_, Middletown_Publie Schoolstuctlle_Ribs, Hartford Public SchoolsRonald Rymash, North Stonington Public SchoolsGeraldine SMith; Canton Public SchoolsMary Wetnland, CT Department of Education

PSYCHOMETRICS ADVISURY COMMITTEE

Robert Gable, Chair, University of ConnecticutBaxter Atkinson, Hartford Public_SchoolsDel Eberhardt;_Greenwich-_PublicLSehoolsVictor_Ferry;Waterford Publie SchoolsDiane Klotz, New London Public SchoolsMichael Nuro, Norwalk Public SchoolsEdward Reidy, West Hartford Public SchoolsJudy Singer, Stamford Public SchoolsJames-SnyderWindsor_Public_Schools _ _

William Stretch; Farmington Publis SehOolSJ;A; Camille Vautour, South Windsor Public Schools

Special thanks to:

John Whritner; former r.hair. Mastery lest ImplementationAdvisory Committee ano East Lyme Public Schools

Marsha Van Hise, language arts committee alternate;Trumbull Public Schools

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

In June 1984, the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut amended Section10-14m-r of the Connecticut General Statutes; an act concerning EducationEvaluation and Remedial Assistance (EERA). This law provides that:

o By May 1; 1985; each local or regional board of education shalldevelop and submit for State Board of Education approval, a new_planof_educational evaluation and remedial assistance Each plan is toaddress the following:-

m

-

the use of student assessment results for instructionalimprovement

the identification of individual students in need of remedialassistance in language arts/reading, and mathematics

the provision of remedial assistance tO stUdents with identifiedneeds

the evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructionalprograms in language arts/reading, and mathematics

The State Board of Education shall administer an_annual stateWidemastery test in language arts/reading, and mathematicti tO allfourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade students.

Each student who scores below the statewide remedial standard on oneor more parts of the eightb-grade mastery examination or the ninthgrade proficiency test shall be retested. Starting in October 1987)these students shall be retested annually; using the eighth-grademastery_testi_ only in the deficient area(s) until such students scoreat or abbve the statewide remedial standard(s).

Biennially, each local or regional board of education shall_submit tothe State Board of Education a report which includes indicators ofstudent achievement and instructional improvement.

On a regularly scheduled basis the State Board of Education shallcomplete field assessments of the implementation of local EERA plans.

o On an annual basis, test results and low income data shall be used todetermine the distribution of available state funds to supportremedial assistance programs.

_The purpose of this_ report is to summarize the development andimplementation of the fourth-grade Connecticut Mastery Test. The_ mastery testassesses how well each_ student is perforMing on those skills _identified _bycontent experts and practicing educators as important for students enteringfourth grade to have mastered.

-1-

OVERVIEW OF THE MASTERY TEST DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

In the spring of 1984_, the _ConnecticutEvaluation_ and Remedial _Assistancecreation of mastery tests in the basicarts, including listening, reading andestablished for grades 4, 6; and 8;

General Assembly amended the Education(EERA) legislation to_ authorize theskill areas Of mathematics and languagewriting skills. The tests were tO be

The goals of the mastery testing program are:

0earlier identification of students needing remedial education;testing a more comprehensive range of academic skillS;setting high expectations and standards for student achievement;more useful test achievement information about students; school anddistricts;improved_assessment of_suitable equal educational opportunities; andcontinual monitoring of students in grades 4, 6, and 8.

The type of test that best addresses these goals is_ a criterionreferencedtest. Criterionreferenced tests are designed to assess the specific skilllevels of _students. Such tests usually cover_ relatively_ small units ofcontent._ Their_scores have meaning in terms of what the student knows_or cando; Test resvlts are used to identify the areas of strengths and weaknessesof each student;

Test Construction

The development of the fourth,grade criterion,referenced mastery test_ requiredthe _formation of seven statewide advisory committees; These included theMathematics and Language Arts Committees; the Psychometrics Committee; theBias_ Committee; the Mastery Test Implementation Advisory Committee; and twostandard setting committees; one _for mathematics and one for_ language arts.These committees_were_comprised_of representatives_from throughout _the state.Members _were _selected for their area of expertise. Some 150 Connecticuteducators participated on the mastery test committees which met over 80 timesover an 18month period (see Acknowledgements; p; vii);

Beginning in the apring_of_ 1984, content committees in both language artsand_mathematics_participated in each stage of the test development process;including assisting the State Department of Education in the selection of_thePsychological Corperation as its test contractor; First; the contentcommittees reviewed the curriculum materials prevalent throughout the stateand the scope of the national tests in use in Connecticut at the respectivegrade levels. The Connecticut curriculum guides in mathematics_ and languagearts, developed in 1981, were valuable resources, as well as the results ofrecent Connecticut Assessment -of Educational Progress (CAEP) arsessments inmathematics and language arts; Next; the committees_ identiiied sets ofpreliminary mathematis and language arts objectives which reflected existingcurriculum materials a-id the goals of the mastery testing program; Thecontent committees defined an ohjective as an operationalized learning outcomethat was fairly narrow and clearly defined.

29

Four criteria were used in identifying the .r.ppropriate_ learning outcomesor test objectives and in select!mg specific test itetS tO be included_ on_theGrade 4 Connecticut Mastery Test. To be considered for use, test objectiveSand items must be:

(1) significant and important,(2) developmentally appropriate,(3) reasonable for most students to achieve, and(4) generally representative of what's taught in Connecticut schools.

Once the _objectives were identified, item specifications and/or sampleitems were written. Item epecifications are_written descriptions of the typesand forms of test items that assess an objective. They also prescribe thetypes of answer choices that can be used with each item;

After the test specifications were written and agreed upon; the testcontractor wrote items and _response choices for_ each of _the objectives. Theitems_ were then reviewed by the content committees. Items which met thecriteria of the test specifications and received the approval of the _contentcommittees were considered for the pilot test. Before testing, the BiasCommittee reviewed each item for potential adverse discrimination of gender,race or ethnicity _in the language or format of the question or responsechoices._ _After their review was completed, the pilot test forms wereconstructed. Over 500 customized Connecticut items _were_ included in theOctober 1984 Grade 4 pilot test in language arts and mathematics.

The Psychometrics Committee provided advice concerning other aspects ofthe_pilot test including_the sampling design, statistical bias analysis, thedesign of item specificarionsi_and_pilot test administration procedures. Therecommendations proposed by the PSychometrics Committee were reviewed andendorsed by the Mastery Test Implementation Advisory Committee.

Pilot Tests

After the items had been reviewed, twelve test_forms (six in mathematics, andsix in language arts) were piloted for the Grade 4_ test. The purpose_ ofseveral pilot test forms was to ensure that enough test items were included toconstr-Ict rLree comparable test forms from the pilot test results.

Over 6,000 Grade 4 students participated in the October 1984 pilot test.In January 1965; the pilot test results were made available_ to_ConnecticutState Department of Education (CSDE) staff. The process of selecting iteMS_tOconstruct three comparable test forms began by the Bias Committee exaMiningthe pilot test statistics af each item for potential bias. As a result, someitems wc_e eliminated from the _item pool. From the remaining items, testforms_ were COnStrUCted tn be _equivalent in Content anel difficulty at both theobjective and total test levels.

10

Once the items were sorted on this basks, the test contractor preparedthree complete forms of the mathematics test and two complete forms of thelanguage arts test; These forms were approved by the content committees;Each form was created to be equal in difficulty and test length. A thirdlanguage arts _test Will be constructed after a _few additional items_ arepiloted as part of a_future test_adtinistration._ The_psychometric proceduresused to construct these test forms focus primarily on the lige Of theone-parameter latent trait model;

Survey

In October 1984; a EvIrvey of preliminary Grade 4 mastery test objectives wassent to over 3;000 Connecticut educators; The purpose of the survey was todetermine (1) the Amportance of the proposed mathematics and reading/languagearts objectives;_and (2) whether the objectives were taught prior to the_fallof grade 4. Over a 507 nesponse rate_ was achieved Whitt: in-chidedapproximately one-third of the respondents representing urban schooldistricts; As a result of the survey; two objectives were not considered tobe important learning outcomes before fourth-grade and consequently wereeliminated from the fourth-grade language arts test by the Language ArtsCommittee.

Mastery Test Content

Mathematics. _The Mathematics Committee recommended a Grade 4

mathematics test that assessed twenty-five (25) specific objectives in fourdomains: (1) Conceptual Understanding; (2) Computational Skills; (3) ProblemSolving/Applications; and (4) Measurement/Geometry; There are four test itemsper objective for a total of 100 items on the mathematics test; A detailedlist of domains; objectives; and number of items per objective is given inAppendix A (O. 19).

Language Arts; The language Arts committee recommended a 103 itemGrade 4 language arts test that covers two domainsl Reading/Listening, andWriting/Locating Information; The eleven (II) objectives recommended by theLanguage Arts Committee are presented in Appendix B (p. 21).

The ,general content of Beading/Listening consisted of narrative;expository; and persuasive passages on a variety of topics measuring astudent's ability in: (1) Literal Comprehension; (2) Inferential orinterpretive Comprehension; and (3) Critical or Evaluative Comprehension;Audiotapes were used to assess students' listening comprehension ability in:(1) Literal Comprehension and (2) Inferential and Evaluative Comprehension.The Degrees of Reading Power Test, which included eight (8) passages andfifty-six (56) test items and was designed to measure a student's ability tounderstand nonfiction English prose at different levels of reading ability,was also used to assess reading;

The general content _of Writing/Locating Information_ consisted of threecomponents. First, writing skills were directly assessed. Each student wasasked to write a composition on a designated topic. Writing was judged on astudent's demonstrated ability to convey information in a coherent andorganized fashion. Second, the mechanics of good writing, which was definedas (1) Capitalization and Punctuation, (2) Spelling, Homonyms andAbbreviationsi and (3) Agreement, was assessed in a multiple choice format.Third, LocAtitg Information, (Schedules, Maps,_ Index and_ References, _andDictionary Meaning) measured students' ability to find and use informationfrom the sources listed. A detailed list of objectives and number of itemsper objective is given in Appendix B.

SETTING MASTERY STANDARDS BY OBJECTIVE

The essence of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is the establishment of aspecific mastery _standard_ that_accurately reflects students' knowledge andcompetency on each objective. The mastery test incorporates apprnpriate_andchallenging expectations for Connecticut public school students._ The goal ofthe CMT Program is for each student to achieve mastery of all objectives. Theobjectives being tested were identified as appropriate and reasonable forstudents_at each of the grades testedi These tests are designed to measurestudents' performance against these specific objectives.

The process of establishing the mastery standards by objective _used _astatistical methOd that required two decisions to be operationalized. Thefirst decision defined a student who mastered a particular skill as one whohad a 95% chance of correctly answering each item within the objective. Thesecond decision was that the _specific standard for each objective wouldidentify 99% of the students who _mastered the skill. For example, literalreading comprehension is measured by 12 questions. By _applying the twodecision rules stated above to a binomial distribution table; A student isidentified as mastering the skill if he/she gets at least 9 of the 12 itemscorrect.

The mastery standards are as follows:

o In mathematics, for each of the 25 objectives, a student must answercorrectly at least 3 out of 4 items.

In language_ arts, _for the nine multiple choice objectives withvarying numbers of_ items, A student must answer correctly thefolloWing number of itemS:

Reading Comprehension(1) Literal(2) Inferential(3) Evaluative

Listening Comprehension(4) Literal(5) Inferential & Evaluative

Writing Mechanics(6) Capitalization and

Punctuation(7) Spelling-Words, Homonyms

and Abbreviations(8) Agreement(9) Locating Information

# Items Correctfor Mastery

9 out of 1210 out of 147 out of 10

5 out of 7

9 out of 13

9 out of 12

7 out of 9

11 out of 158 out of 11

No mastery levels were set for the two holistic language arts measures,the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test and the Writing Sample, since thesemeasures are not composed of objectives against which mastery couId be

assessed;

Setting Remedial (Grant) Standards

The Psychometrics Committee also considered alternative_ways to set standardsfor grant and remedial purposes. Public Act 84-294 requires _that the

Connecticut State Board of Education establish statewide standards forremedial assistance in order to meet two responsibilities:

to identify and monitor the_ progress of students in need of remedialassistance in language arts/reading and mathematics as part of theEERA field assessments; and

to distribute EERA funds based on the number of needy studentsstatewide, as well as for use in the Chapter 2 and Priority SchoolDistrict Grants.

The Psychometrics Committee advised_setting the _standards by the number ofitems correct because of important_technieal considerations in equating testforms. The committee conducted lengthy _deliberations _over_ the technicalfeasibility of establishing standards by the number ef objectives passed butfelt there were significant ubstaeles which couId not be overcome;

Standardsetting committees in mathematics and language arts/reading wereconvened in March 1985 to determine _the _grant/remedial standards. Thestandardsetting committees recommended the following remedial standards:

6

1. In mathematics, a student who answers fewer than_ 69 of the 100 items(69%) correctly is required to receive further diagnosis by the localschool district and, if necessary; to be provided with remedialassistance.

2; In reading, a student whose Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) unit scoreis lower than 41 iS required to receive further diagnosis and, ifnecessary, to be provided with remedial assistance.

3. In writing, a student receiving a total holistic score less than 4 isrequired to receive further diagnosis by the local school districtand, if necessary, to be provided with remedial assistance.

The recommendations of the Paychometrics Committee and the StandardSetting Committees were reviewed by the Mastery Test Implementation_AdvisoryCommittee in March 1985. The Mastery Test Implementation Advisory Committee(MTIAC) endorsed the_procedures used_to establish the remedial standards withthe clarification that the remedial stand3rds should be considered broadindicators of student _achievement and need. The __value of thecriterionreferenced test is as a diagnostic tool to help_ districts identifystudents in need of remedial assistance; to target State Department _ofEducation resources _to those students most in need, and to provide usefulinformation _to local school districts for improving their curriculum andinstructional programs. The MTIAC felt_strongly that the data generated bythe State Department of Education should not be used to compare performanceamong districts.

The mastery and remedial standards were adopted, as recommended, by theState Board of Education on June 23, 1985. _For a_detailed explanation of theremedial standardgetting process, see Appendix C (p. 23).

TEST ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING

Test sessions were_ conductedby local school district staff under thesupervision of local test coordinators who had_ been trained by_ staff of theDepartment and the Psychological Corporation. A student who took all subtestsparticipated in approximately six hours of testing.

In order to accommodate the number of religious holidays in late Septemberand early October, the Grade 4 Mastery Test schedule allowed for three weeksof testiag (including makeups). Also, in order_to allow local districts asmuch latitude as possible in adapting test administration to local conditionsand students' needs, local plans for adminiStration of the Grade 4 MasteryTest were acceptable if the following guidelines were met for all students:

Testing Guidelines: Grade 4 Connecticut Mastery Test

a)b)

t)

d)

The writing sample MUST occur on Tuesday, September 24, 1985._

Other testing must occur sometime between September 23

and October 4, 1985;All fourth graders in a district must be tested on the same schedule.Testing must occur during the regular school day in a regularclassroom setting.No more than two _(2) testing sessions may_be administered in one daywith at least A half-hour break between testing sessions (e.g., twoa.m. sessions or-one a.m. session and one p.m:. session).Make-up sessions MUST conclude by Friday, October 11, 1985.

Conditions "d" and "e" above must also hold for all make-up sessions.

The Grade_ 4 Connecticut Mastery Test_ had seven teSting SeSSions. Eachsession included five minutes for instructions.

mathematics I (60 minutes)mathematics II (60 minutes)writing sample_(45 minutes)Degrees of Reading_Power (45 minutes)reading comprehension (45 minutes)_listening comprehension (45 minutes)writing mechanics/Iocating information (45 minutes)

At the conclusion of the make-up testing _period, answer booklets werereturned to_National Computer Systems (NCS) of Iowa City, Iowa and organizedin preparation for holistic scoring workshops and optical scanning and scoring:

Scoring of the Language Arts and MAthematics Test

The mathematics and language arts multiple-choice tests were machine-scored byNCS. Mathematics_ scores were reported for the total test as weIl as formastery by each objective; Likewise, language arts scores were reported fortha total test as well as for mastery of each objective.

Scoring of the Writing Sample

The vrititg _sampletechnique known asimpressionistic andbasis of their_

understanding ofachievement on aevaluated .

was scored by Connecticut elementary teachers using athe holistic scoring method. Holistic scoring is anquick scoring process that rates written products on_the

relies_ upon_ the_ scorers'_ trainedthat d6t6rmine distinct levels of

the group of writing pieces being

overall quality. It

the general featuresscale appropriate to

The major assumption upon which holistic scoring is based la that thequality of a piece of writing should be judged on its overall success as awhole presentation; rather than on the quality of its component parts.Contributing to the rationale underlying holistic scoring is evidence that:(1) _no aspect of _writing skill can really _be judged independently;(2)teachers can recognize and agree upon good writing when they_see it regardlessof how they describe writing ability, and (3) teachers will rate pieces ofwriting in much the same way regardless of any discrepant views they mighthold about how particular components of writing should be weighed.

The procedw-e for_ holistic_ scoring is specific to the complete set ofwriting samples on a given topic that a group of scorers have been asked toevaluaLe. That is, the scoring scale is based on the range of abilityreflected in the particular set of writing samples being assessed.

Preparation for scoring. Prior to the training/scoring sessions, acommittee consisting of Connecticut State Department of Education_ (CSDE)consultants, representatives of the language arts committee_and other languagearts specialists, two Chief Readers and project staff from Measurement Inc. ofDurham; North Carolina; met and read a substantial number of essays drawn fromthe total pool of essays to be scored; Approximately 60 essays were selectedto serve as "range-finders" or "marker papers," representing the range ofachievement jlemonstrated in the total set of _papers._ Copies_ of thoserange-finders served as_ training papers _during the scoring workshops whichfollowed; Each range-finder was assigned a score according to a four-pointscale, where 1 represents a poor paper and 4 represents a superior paper.

_Scoring workshops. Duriug_the month of Novemberi eight holistic scoringworkshops were held in two different locations in the state. Attendance atthese scoring workshops totaled 700 teachers. A Chief Reader and twoassistants were present at every workshop in addition to representatives ofthe CSDE. Each workshop consisted of a training session and a scoringsession.

The general procedure for a training session is described below.

o Each training paper (range-finder) was studied it turn andtriaI-scored by an scorers. Scoring judgments were independent;quick, and immediate; and were based on the scorer's overallimpression of the paper. No fractional points on the score scale(1-4) were permissible.

o After all scorers had scored the first four training papers, theirjudgivmts were compared to the score assigned_ during therange-finding process. Any discrepancies were discussed. Throughrepeated discussions_on succeeding training papers; scorers came toidentify and internalize those features of written composition thatdistinguish the papers along the establiShed range. ThiS "hdllatic"process obviates the need to articulate explicitly the specificcriteria that separate one score point from the next.

-9- 16

Scorers were 4calibrated" hY ascertaining that they were makingataT: another and with the Chief Reader/tablejudgment:3 cox:5i

n:11:3u7 Papers continued until agreement wasleaders. DisctIss

reached on the scores of the training papers .

scorers were Calibrated, act nal scoring of the writing exercises°nQeEach paper .-was read dnd ePacdently bY two different _scorers; thatOired.

i ::'-'e second reader did not see the_s core assigned by the first reader. _Theo

chief_ keader was resPcilaihIe for ad illdttating any disag:feement of more thanone_ J'atut between the two scorers as wen as any score in

!=s_cIn Zer words; discrepancies of one pointcamOnation with a zerbetVeell scores_(e.g., 4_aad 3, 1 and 2 2 and 3) were accep_tablei_but largerdiacr-epancies (e.g., 2- aod 4, 3 and 1, ) and 4, as well aa 0 and 1i_20 3, or4) 110 to be resolved the Chief R11- -eader. Once a paper was assigned_twoynon-4tcrepant scorea_, the two scores would be summed to produce the finalscare for each student. The possible s caie of summed scores ranged from a Iowaf 2 t° a high of 8.

Examples of actual student _papersVnderstanding the h olistic scores.-whiel are representative of the scoring range will assiSt the reader _inunderstanding the statewide standard Pet for writing and in interpreting thetest results. Sample Papers representing four different holistic scores arePresented in Appendix D (p. 29). Note that the process of summing the scoresassigned by the two readers exp ands the scoring scale_ to account_ for"bor4srline" papers. A paper which receives a 4 from both_scorers (for atot-Setiore of 8) is_ likely to be bet ter than a paper to which one readeraSSigne a 4 and anothe:.: reader assigns a 3 (for a total score of 7); InaddiVica; it should be A ImpL asized that aach of the score points represents a

tudent papersrange af a--tl-.

some 4 papers a re better than others.

A tcore -of zero (0) was assigned to student papers in certain cases. __Ascore cf 0 indicates that a paper is aoit soorabie and; therefore; that thestudent's writing skills remain to be as nessed. The cases in which a score of0 wao assigned were as fnilows:

o responses merely rep eated the as signment

o illegible respouees

o blank responses

o responses in languages other th an Erglish

o responses that to addressf the assigned topic in any way-ailed

o responses that weredemonstrated no sIgnsresponse by a student

o __1 yerywho failed t Re

too briv,7: to score accurately, but which

of serious_ writing _problems (for _example, a

the essay_first on SCratCh paper andM::!1:1Y1-t reCopied)

-10--

Both readers had to agree that a paper deserved a zero before this scorewas assigned. If the two readers disagreed, the Chief Reaaer arbitrated thediscrepancy. Papers which were assigned a score of zero were not included insummary reports of test results.

Analytic Scoring

All_papers receiving holistic scores below the remedial standard also receivedanalytic_scoring in _five categories (traits):_ focus, organization, support/elaboration, mechanics and sentence formation. Analytic scoring_ ia_thorough; trait-by-trait analysis of those components of a writing sample thatare considered important to any piece of writing in any context; This scoringprocedure can provide a comprehensive picture of a student's writingperformance if_enough traits are analyzed. It can_identify those traits thatmake a piece of writing effective or ineffective. However, the traits need tobe explicit and well defined so that the raters understand and agree upon thebasis for making judgments about the writing sample. The analytic ratingguide and sample marker papers for the analytic scoring are presented inAppendix E (p. 37).

Scoring of the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test

The scores reported are in DRP unit scores. These scores identify thedifficulty_ or readability level of prose that a student can read withcomprehension. This makes it possible to match the difficulty of writtenmaterials with student ability. These scores can be _better interpreted bYreferring to the readability levels of some general reading materials as shownbelow:

Elementary textbooks (grades 3-5) - 35-58 DRP Unita

o Fiction Section - child magazines - 48 DRP Units

A much more extensive list of reading materials is contained and rated inthe booklet Readability Report, Seventh Edition, published by The CollegeBoard.

The conversion between DRP unit scores and raw scores can be made from thetabled values in The College Board's Degrees of Reading Power PB SeriesConversion Tables, effective March, 1985.

SCHOOL DISTRICT TEST RESULTS REPORTING

The CMT school district reports are designed to provide useful andcomprehensive test achievement information about students, schools anddistricts. Four standard test reports are generated to assist teachers,principals, superintendents_ and parents to understand _and usecriterion-referenced test_results. Appendix F (p. 61) presents samples of theschool district and parent/student diagnostic score reports;

FALL 1985 STATEWIDE MA3TERY TEST RESULTS

The Grade Four Connecticut _Mastery Test provides a comprehensive report_cardon how students perform on specific skills that Connecticut educators f.lel areimportant at the beginning of fourth grade. The mastery test isinstructionally useful since it identifies areas of weakness, as well as areasof strength.

Mathematics

In matheratics, fourth graders mastered al, average of 19.3_objectives of the25 tested, or 77.2 percent. The state's goal is that all students masterevery objective, or 100 percent. Chart 1 (p. 13) illustrates that, statewide,students demonstrated strong scores in the areas of basic facts and simpleapplications (such as addition/subtraction to 18; addition/subtraction withoutregrouping; and_addition with _regrouping)i but students did not perform aswell un items that require higher level thinking -- that is,_conceptual andanalytical skills (e.g., rewrite numbers by regrouping and identify_ numbersentences from pictures). While students demonstrated acquisition of basicmathematical skills, the results show weaker performanne on items that assessan understanding of place value and estimation.

_Students Also performed_poorly on topics not emphasized in primary schoolmathematics textbooks, such as use_ of patterns amid ability to interpretpictorial representations of mathematical relationships.

A total of 67 percent of the students mastered 19 or more objectives onthe mathematics test, and 8 percent mastered all 25 objectives (seeAppendix G, p. 73).

Students getting fewer than 69 questions correct on the 100-questionmathematics section (20%) were identified as needing further diagnosis andpossible remedial instruction.

Language Arts

In language arts, grade 4 students averaged 6.1 objectives of the nine tested;or 67 percent. The state's goal is that all students master every.objective;or 100percent. Chart 2 (p. _14) illustrates that_ while students_ didreasonably well _on writing_mechanics and on locating _information, significantweaknesses are found in higher order_inferential and evaluative reading andlistening comprehension. A total of 63 percent of the students mastered sixor more objectives on the language arts test; which includes writing andreading skills, and_28 percent of the students mastered all nine objectives(see Appendix G, p. 73).

In writing, grade 4 students averaged 4.8 points on a_ scale of ,2through 8; The state's goal is that an students be able to produce anorganized, well-supported piece of writing; that is, a score of 7 or 8.

Chart 3 (p. 15) illustrates that 17 percent of the students produced an

-1

19

MATHEMATICS:

_WAGE NUMBER OF

OBJECTIVES MASTERED

25

19 3

1985

YEAR

This bar chad illustrates the

average number of mat he.

matics objectives mastered,

statewide.

MATHEMATICS: PERCENT OF STUDENTS AtHIEVING MASTERY FOR EACH OBJECTNE

cONWItik-UNDERPAWINGSDER111141A1k10 OW SS NAN

ECK PATTERNS

ORDEMEILRflI fS EXPANDED ROTATION

REVINTEIIIYAGIOUPING

efRACTIJNAL PANS

REM MIMI FACTS to POURS

OS[78%

91%

54%

COMPL1W1ONAL SKILLS

LOw. rws to M

W 41' MO REGROUPING

IN%

a I V41H REGROUPINGN%

1- ESNATE SUMSMIFFERRECES

U MULTMLYINVIDE BY MIDW'III PROBLEM SOLVINGIAPPLICOONS

0 ID OffifS !NAM-82%

L9 REAMITERRRET GROHS89% _

U READANTERERT TARES78% 1

P 10 'MINUS ERN ticnns_157%

41 io 1 SR TENCH ROM Palos191%

2 SOLVE STORY MOMS Ji- 183%

W SOLVE Pr ARMOR EXTRA MO1

11=

ID NEEDED Itif 0 IN MORRIS Ph<2 MEASUREMENTIGEOMEM

MEASURE LEMG1WA UNITS

(SAW ENGMAREA

TELL TIME(138%

OETERMAIE VALUE OE A SET OE COM

0 SHAPESANOLE9SIDESI V%

79%

10 20 30 40 50 00 70

PERCENT OF STUDENTS

This bar chart illustrates the percent of students, statewide, who mastered each of the 25 mathematics

objectives.

LANGUAGE ARTS:

AVERAGE NUMBER OF

OBJECTIVES MASTERED

co 6

.11

t

6.1,

1995

YEAR

This bar chari Musw16 the

average number of lin.

page _arts objectives mas,

teret statewid-c

LANGUAGE ARTS: PERCENT OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY FOR EACH OBJECTIVE

;VIM MEOWS

COME411011141U1C111,4101

1,6110101101111154111111.4X45

/4614141

11/

LOWING IMMATION

506.1111441110450CIVO

0 LIMNING COMPREHENSION

tinki

seerntamormLU

04 HEADING COMPREHENSION30

utak

5 tottaw.

MUM

74%

=w80%

81%

4%

67%

51%

55%

73%

I I I I. I

10 20 30 40 so 80 70 80 90 100

PERCENT OF STUDENTS...This bar chart illustrates the percent ofstudents, 91810wIda, who mastered each of the nine lenguage artsobjectives,

23

WRITING SAMPLE:AVERAGE HOLISTIC SCORE

1985

YEAR

This bar chart illustrates theaverage holistic writingscore of students, state-wide.

WRITING SAMPLE:PERCENT OF STUDENTS AT EACH SCORE POINT

21%

16%

3 4 5 6

HOLISTIC WRITING SCORES

This bar chart illustrates the distribution of 5tud6;AS Who received eachholiStictivriting score; statewide. Holistic writing scores are interpreted as follows: astudent who scores 7 or 8 has produced a paper which is woll written withdeveloped supportive detail; a Student who Scores 5 or 6 has produced a paperwhich is generallywell organized with supportive detail; a Student who scores4 is minimally proficient; and a student who scores 2 or 3 is in need of furtherdiagnosis and possible remedial assistance.

Chart 3Wliting Sample: Percent of Students at Each Score Point

-15-

DEGREES OF READINGPOWER 40_(DRP):

AVERAGE CRPUNIT SCORE

99=95918783797571

676359

a- 55crcl 51

474339353127231915 '

43

1985

YEAR

DEGREES OF READING POWER* (DRP)*:PERCENT OF STUDENTS AT SELECTED RANGES OF DRP UNIT SCORES

This bar chart illustrates theaverage DRP unit score ofstudents, statewide.

z 40O

30---0

C.)LuCC 20a.

10

32%

40 AND BELOW

26%-

42%

41 - 49

DRP UNIT SCORES50 AND ABOVE

This bar chart illustrates the distribution of students, statewide_scoring in eachof three Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) score categories. DRP score cate-gories are interpreted as follows: a student who scores 50 DRP units or abovecan read, with high cornprehension, materials_which are typically used at grade4 or above; a student who scores 4149 DRP units can read, with high com-prehension, materials which are typically used below grade 4 but above theRemedial Standard; and a student who scores 40 DRP units or below is in needof further diagnosis and possible remedial asAstance.

Chart 4Degrees of Reading Power: Percent of StudentsAt Selected Ranges of DRP Unit Scores

:==.1.6==

organized, well-supported_ piece of writing _(a 7 oran 8score)i and_ anadditional 37 percent produced a paper_ which is generally well_organized (a 5or a 6 score); Another large group; 26 percent, scored a 4, which i definedas a "minimally proficient piece of writing._" A total of 19 percent of thestudents scored a 2 or a 3i which is below the remedial standard;

In reading, grade 4 students averaged 43 units on a scale of 15through 99. The state's goal is that all students be able to read with_highcomprehension materials typically used at the fourth grade or above, that is,at least 50 on_the scale.__Chart 4 (p. 16) illustrates that 42 percent of thestudents scored at least 50 on the reading section, 26 percent scored between41 and 49, and 32 percent scored_below 41, _which is _the remedial standard.The average score of 43 suggests that _Connecticut fourth graders typically canread, with high comprehension, materials normally used up to grade 4.

Test Results by District

Appendix H (p. 77)_ and Appendix I (p. 85) present a listing of the mathematicsand larguage arts test results, respectively, for Connecticut schooldistricts. School districte are listed alphabetically, followed by regionalschool districts. Tbe Type of Community (TOC) designation in the secondcolumn indicates _the group with which each district or school has beenclassified. A definition of the TOC classifications is provided in Appendix J(p. 93).

Because the most valid comparisons for district scores are longitudinalwithin each district, the State Department of Education advises against makingschool district comparisons. The following caution should also be noted:

It_is not appropriate or meaningful to sum across the different testsand subtests because of differences in test length_and mastery andremedial standards. These_comparisons_are inappropriate since it iaimpossible to identify, solely on the basis of the above information,how the average student has performed in the districts beingcompared. Average scores and standard deviations provide moreappropriate comparative information on how_well the-average student isperforming, although many factors may affect the comparability ofthese statistics as well;

Participation Rate Results

Appendix K (p, 95) presents the _number_ of fourth-grade students indistrict and the percentS of students who participated in the grademastery testing during the Fall 1985 statewide adMiniatratiOn .alphabetical listing of districts provides the following information fordistrict:

Column 1

Column 2Column 3Column 4Column 5_ _

Columns 6-13

eachfourThe

each

The number of fourth-grade students on October 1 accordingto the ED-025.

The number of fourth-grade students at the time of testing.The difference between columns 1 and 2.The number of students eligible for testing;The percent of eligible students exempted from testing.The percent and number of eligible students tested in each

content area.

The results in Appendix K illustrate that participation_rates by schooldistrict on the fourth-grade CMT were quite high, with only a few exceptions

-17-

APPENDIX A

Grade 4 Mathematics Objectives

_lg.- 2 7

Test Blueprint - Grade 4 Mathematics

The 25 objectives of the grade 4 mathematics test are listed below. There arefour test items for each objective.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS (28)

1. Identify the number one more, one less, ten more or ten less than a givennumber (4)

*2. Extend patterns involving numbers and attributes (4)*3. Order whole_numbers (4)*4. Rewrite numbers using expanded_notation (4)*5. Rewrite numbers by regrouping tens and ones (4)*6. Identify fractional parts of regions and sets from pictures for halves,

thirds, fourths and sixths (4)*7 Relate multiplication and division facts to rectangular arrays (4)

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS (20)

8; Know addition and subtraction facts to 18 (4)*9. Add and subtract one- and two-digit numbers without regrouping (4)*10. Add one- and two-digit numbers with regrouping (4)*11. Estimate sums and differences to 100 (4)*12. Multiply and divide by 2, 5 and 10 (4)

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPLICATION1; (32)

*13. Identify objects_or numbers that do or do not belong in a collection,matrix or array (4)

*14. Read and interpret bar grAphs and pictographs (4)*15. Read and interpret data from tables and charts (4)_*16. Identify or write number sentences from pictures (4)*17. Identify number sentences from addition or subtraction story problems (4)*18. Solve simple story problems involving addition or subtractien (4)_*19 Solve and identify number sentences in simple story problema inVolving

addition and subtraction, with extraneous information (4)*20; Identify needed information in problem situations (4)

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY (20)

*21. Measure length and identify appropriate units for measuring length anddistance (4)

*22; Estimate lengths and areas (4)*23. Tell time to the nearest houri half hour and quarter hour, using analog

and digital clocks (4)*24. Determine the value of a set of coins (4)*25; Identify shapes, angles,and sides (4)

*The asterisk indicates that performance on this skill is reported at thestudent, classroom, school, district and state levels.

()Number of items for each content area or objective

-20-

28

APPENDIX B

Grade 4 Language Arts Objectives

Test Blueprint - Grade 4 Langrage Arts

There are nine multiple choide objectiVes and ti4O holiatid Meilaurea; one forreading and one for writing; within the grade 4 language arta teat.

READING AND LISTENING

Reading Comprehension (36)

*1. Literal (12)*2. Inferential (14)*3. Evaluative (10)

*Degrees of Reading Power (56)

Listening Comprehension (20)

*4. Literal (7)*5 Inferential & Evaluative 13)

WRITING AND LOCATING INFORMATION

*Writing Sample° (1)Writing Mechanics (36)

*6. Capitalization and Punctuation (12)*7. Spelling Words; Homonyms and Abbreviations*8. Agreement (15)

- Verb Tense (5)__- Subject Verb (5)Pronoun_Referents (5)

*9. Locating Information (11)- Schedules (3)-Maps (5)_ _

- Index and Referende 3)-Dictionary (2)

(9)

*The_asterisk ihdidatea that perfOrMande_on_this_akill is reported at thestudent; classroom; school; district and state levels.

()Number of items for each content area or objective°Holistic scoring provided for all Grade 4 students. Analytic scoringprovided for Grade 4 students who score below the remedial standard of 4 (on

acale of 2-8).

=22=

30

APPENDIX C

Remedial (Grant) Standard-Setting Process

4

Remedial (Grant) Standard-Setting ProceZg

Background

There are several acceptable strategies for setting_ standards oncriterion-referenced tests. Each of the proposed methods has one or moreunique characteristics. One common element to the various methods is thatthey all offer to the individuals who are setting the standards some processwhich reduces the arbitrariness of the resulting standard. Different methodsaccomplish this in _different ways. All methods systematize the standard-7setting process so that the regUlt_ acCurately reflectS the co]lective informedjudgment of those setting the standard.

Types of Standard-Setting Methods

-Standard-setting methods can generally be categorized into three types: testquestion review, individual performance-review and group performance_review.Test question review methods specify a procedure for standard setters toexamine each test question and make a judgment about that question Foz.

example, standard setters might be asked to rate the difficulty or theimportance of each _question. These judgments are then combined mathematicallyto produce a standard. _Individual_ performance review methods also_ requirestandard setters to make judgments, but the judgments are made on the basis ofexamining data that indicate how well individual students perform on testitems. These data may be based on actual pilot test results or projectedresults using mathematical theories. In this method,_ additional studentinformation, such as grades,_ may also_ be_used_ to inform the standard setters.Group performance review methods provide for judgments to be made based on theperformance of a reference group of students. That is, standard settersreview _the group _performance and make a determination where the standardshould be set based on the group results.

SeleCtiOn:of a Standard-Settethod

Several factors affect the choice of a particular standard-setting method;The type of test is one consideration. For example, some methods are onlyappropriate for multiple choice questions or for single correct answerquestioas while other_ methods are_ more flexible._ For example, tithe

constraints are a consideration i_f student performance data are necessary. Itthis case, a pilot test must be conducted and the test results must _beanalyzed prior to setting the standards; Another consideration is therelative importance of the decisions that will be made on the basis of thestandard. For example, a classroom test affecting only a_few students wouldnot _require as s_tringent a procedure_ as would a_ statewide test_ determiningwhether a student is allowed to graduate from high school. Other relevantfactors include the number of test items, permanence of the_standard, purposeof the test; and the extent of available financial and other resources tosupport the standard-setting process.

-24-

32

On February 4, 1985, the Mastery Test Psychometrics Committee met to considerthe issue of standard-setting procedures and voted unanimously to approve thefollowing proposal.

A PROPOSAL FOR SETTING THE REMEDIAL STANDARDS ON THE CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTS

1. Two standard7setting committees will be created: one for mathematics andone for reading and writing.

2. This description of a minimally proficient student will be given to eachof the committees:

Imagine a student who is just proficient enough in reading [writing,mathematics] to successfully participate in his/ber regularfourth-grade coursework.

3.A In mathematics, an adaptation of the Angoff procedure will be used. Thtcommittee ill be provided with each item appearing on one form of themathematics test. The committee will be given the following directions:

Consider a group of 100 o these students who are just proficientencagh to be successful in regular fourth-grade coursework. How manyof them would be expected to correctly answer each of the questions.

The committee will rate _each item. The committee will then be given theopportunity to discuss their rating of each_item._ Sample pilot data_willbe presented. Committee members will be given the opportunity to adjusttheir item ratings. The item ratings will then be averaged in accordancewith the Angoff procedure in order to produce a recommended test standard.

3;B In reading,_the_committee will review and_discuss_ each passage of theDegrees of Reading Power (DRP) test. Student performance data will bepresented. The committee will consider the reading diffitUlty that ShOuldbe expected of a student at the grade level being tested. Tbe committeemembers will identify the passage that has the appropriate level ofreading difficulty consistent with the above description of a minimallyproficient student.

3.0 In writing, the committee will read four sample essays. These essays willhave beer prescored holistically (on a scale from 2 to 8) in order to rankthe quality of the essays. Committee members will classify essays intoone of three categories: 1) definitely NOT proficient, 2) borderline, aria3) _definitely profiCient. These classifications will be discussed inlight _Of_ the_ holistic scores. The committee will then classifyapproximately twenty-five additional essays. The essay ratings_will bediscussed in the same manner as the original four essays. When_all essayshave been discussed, the essays which fell in the borderline category willbe focused upon to determine the standard. The committee will determinewhere among the borderline essays, the standard should be estabTished.

4. The standards recommended in step 3 Will be presented ro the Mastery TestImplementation Advisory Committee for discussion and action;

-25-tIt 33

Connecticut's Strategy

Several steps were employed to create an acceptable and valid test standardfor Connecticut tests; Initially, a separate standard-netting committee wasconvened for each test on which standards are to be set. Individuals werechosen to serve as members on the committee on the basi6 of their familiaritywith the_area being assessed and the nature of the examinees. One_source ofsuch members is the test content committees related to the project. F6rexample, members of the Mathematics. Committee were represented ot thecommittee setting standards for the mathematics mastery test;

The actual procedures_used to set standards were an adaptation of a methodproposed by William Angoff (1970). _This test question review method requiredmembers of a standard-setting committee to_ estimate the probability _thatquestion would be correctly answered by examinees who possess no more than theminimally acceptable knowledge or skill in the areas being assessed; Standardsetters then reviewed pilot test data for sample items as further evidence ofthe appropriateness of the judgments being made. The, original probabilityestimates assigned to each test question were reviewed and adjustments made bythe standard setters. The_final _individual item_probabilities were summed toyield_ a suggested test standard for each meMber of the committee. Thesuggested standards were avereged across members of the committee to producethe recommended test standardi

_The recommended test _standard was presented to the_ Mastery TestImplementation Advisory Committee and the State Board of Education.

In mid-March, Mathematics and Language Arts Standard-Setting Committeesmet to set the remedial standards for the srade 4 mastery testi The followinginformation summarized the results of. the standard-setting activitiesconducted by CSDE Staff:

I. Mathematics (100 item test)

Using the procedures previously outlined, the standard setters rated each itemend considered the pilot data. _Committee members discussed items and weregiven the opportunity to adjust their initial ratings. The_final ratings wereaveraged to produce a remedial standard. It is recommended that a raw_scoreof 69 be the remedial mathematics standard. Below is a summary of the ratings;

Procedure # Judges Range_% Mean % Correct Raw Score

Angoff 21 56.7-81.3 68.7

II. Reading_cDostees_of-Readits-Poweq5-6-Alt,e-t-te-40-

68.7

Standard setters used two procedures to establish a remedial readingstandard. First, they examined the passages in the Degrees of Reading Power(DRP)_ testi asking themselves _which passage is too difficult for the studentwho is just proficient enough to successfully participate in fourth-gradecoursework. Discussion occurred throughout this selection process;

-26-

Second,_they examined textbooks whiCh are typically used in grades_3 and_4and selected those textbooks which a minimally proficieut student would_not beexpected to read in order to successfully participate it fourthgradecoursework. Discussion occurred throughout this selection process

The average_readability values of_the selected_passages and textbooks andthe_pilot test data were then revealed to the standard setters. The_standardsetters discussed the readability values and the pilot test data _and.recommended the DEP unit score of 41 as the remedial standard. Below is asummary of the ratings.

Procedure

A. Test Passage Review

B. Textbook Review

Readability# Judges Range

17 42-48 DRP Units

17 42-51 DRP Units

ale)

Using the procedure previously outlined, standard setters read and rated 21essays written to a narrative prompt and 21 essays written to an expositoryprompt. After discussions and final ratings, the I.alistic scores for chepapers were revealed to the group. The committee then discussed theappropriate remedial writing standard in light of the degree to which theirratings matched the holistic scores. It was the recommendation of thecommittee that holistic writing score of 4 be used as the remedial writingstandard. Below is a summary of the ratings.

NARRATIVE PROMP2Rating After Discussion

HOliaticSCord

DefinitelyNOT PrOficient

2 84%3 37%4 4%

5 _8%6 20%7 4%8 4%

DefinitelyBorderline Proficient

4% 12%6% 57%4% 92%6% 86%2% 78%0% 96%2% 94!'

EXPOSITORY PROMPTRating After Discussion

HolisticSCord

DefinitelyNOT PrOficient

2 94%3 33%4 4%5 0%6 2%

7 0%

8 0%

DefinitelyBorderline Proficient

0% 6%2% 65%

12% 84%2% 98%4% 94%0% 100%

0% 100%27

LANGUAGE ARTS STANDARD-SETTING COMMITTEE

EVelyn P. _Burnham, Colebrook Public_Schools _

Nicholas P._Criscuolo, New_Haven_Puhlic SchoolsMary It-Fisher, Thompson Public SchoolsMarOilerite_Fuller; Bridgeport Public SchoolsAnne Jackel, Thompson Public SchoolsDorothy Kaplan;_Middletown Public SchoolsBOb Lintoln, Tolland Public Schools_ _

Virginia Lity, Bridgeport Public SchoolsVirginia Manulls, Colebrook Public Schools

Noreen McDermott, Hartford PUblit SthooltElizabeth Nelligan,_Canton_Public SchoolsDorothy POWS, Canton PUblit SchoolsCarol D. Parmelee; Middletown Public SchOOltBeverly R. Peterman, Stamford Public SchoolsGera Ølne_Smith, Canton_PUblic_Schools_Robert Kinder, CT Department of EducationMary Weinland, CT Department of Education

MATHEMATICS STANDARD-SETTING COMMITTEE

Betsy Andersen; Manchester, ConnetticUt_Geraldine M. Cemprola; Ridgefield Public SchoolsLinda Cherry, Suffield_Public SchoolsElizabeth B. Cubeta; Middletown Public SchoolsCorretta K. Dean, BridgeportiPublic SchoolsTony Ditrio, Norwalk_Public_Schools _

Anita Gaston; Bloomfield Public SChooltaanet_Heintz, Farmington Public SchoolsMary Anna Keough; Meriden_Public_SchoolsWesley Masten; Norwalk PubP.t SthoblsIrene B. Moriarty, Meriden Public Schools

-28-

Pamela Munro,_Windham Public SchoolsEileen O'Reilly, Manthetter Public SchoolsLois Piper; Norwalk Public SchoolsTwila Pollard; New_Haven Public Schools_Rosemary POwers, Bloomfield PublicSchoolsSylvia E; Webb, Middletown PUblit SthooltGeorge_AWellsi New Haven Public SchoolsFrank K._Whittaker, Bridgeport Public SchoolsBetsy Carter, CT Department Of EdutationSteven Leinwand, CT Department of Education

36

APPENDIX D

Marker Papers for Holistic Scoring

29

CONNEMICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE 4

r wets e er W tS5 71,er

to-i-ft e- a kJf' e 3bl-45(.11- c)414t-cw_h_iftlr/4

1-4eil $iLlot fir 7 ? /Ivn kJ :hrhe Pien_rtny 1-x

44L-+P=E-410-1A 1- 6 rpt

ad.Score Point; 1

This paper is a list of undeveloped activities; it is an outline of a

story. The details are sparse, and there is little tying of one idea to

the next;

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE 4 WRITING SAMPLE TI

Score Point: 2

This is an example of a narrative with limited eXt&itittet (elaborationLThe _

writer introduces new elements into his story but does not develop them so

that his response_becomes litt=like

.7111=111

Page 5 39

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE 4 WRfli SAMPLE

SCORE POINT: 3

Page 5 40

Score Point: 3

There is a good sense of control and balance of narrative elements in

this story. The writer implements narrative framing by the use of the

creaking door. There is logical progression with some elaboration but

the narrative needs more development in order to be in score point 4

range.

SA

We 0

/....,4 - --t.......0r or ,,, ,.. 0 AvA . ... 7

F."---79SirI

. 241/IDA

I f -.1 AJAX:IffAr

, 0,40

-

_

4 Ale1

e _

#grit

/

...

_J .A

L4MeAllIFIVe# /...a

if

_4 .4

A..d4

0

:YAP

1.4Jr, s

&ALI; . Ael 40:./

24*__A..di

./Ilf . 40.

4 A Adte / /Os ,,./- ia v ; I Ai /

41

. I/

. J 4 4> 14eig

A

_

/ke

10

A_AL...ard P _4741

:reAI fr

Ardo

_Airmem

V /

. f. 2141MIEW

ff

, A_0// 00

- 144111111tpAI saeave Ap.

./XeMilar#A140/MEWI :Ger 44 .1 _d 0

°JP / *AV

,41

4, .4.. /

raMAPos,/,il . Ai°

* .01,1) 1_04

.4 f719./ l, atiate

.44

41_

. A./

/0_ Ale

/A

41

rp.

K,.419.0.6,

4.4e _di

.40

40AP AF, ifa.1 AN,/

Ar

'41' 411'

e

.61 . . 4 .0 ..1.4//,,,sr

..412 d i Ie # . A... .14 %it,Ar4".. .0 A,/1Av./ ..os AW

,....dd II.-" A Aii'a 'Lk, . 4 _Ill

. .. ffeerAira ../A ,i, 4.1.r-4 Ali .2A'

.4 _A A Al A

Atu.aue A

iggfe.f2 itmormileabga...AngbaLira. Iff% 1.7411belf - A J .444./.4

40EAf

V - tb_(0,3'

< aier OIL

.1 4., alAMENNIANNA,

,4!

gigWr, .b.

#41

.0 -I zzaMir

L JP, 411. A

-a

Score Point: 4

The writer demonstrates a narrative plan by beginning with the history

of the house as background information then progressing to the narrative

itself which concerns visiting the house. There is good attention to

detail and varied word choice. The paper is well-organized and the

storyline is controlled. There is some uneven development in the last

two paragraphs of the story but this compositional weakness is compensated

by the strengths of the rest of the response.

APPENDIX E

Analytic Rating Guide and Marker Papers for Analytic Scoring

-37- 45

ANALYTIC RATING GUIDE

FOCUS: How effectively does the writer unify the paper by a dominant topic?

1 = Owitthes and/or drifts frequently from_the dominant topic2 = switches and/or drifts somewhat from the dominant topic3 = stays on topic throughout the reSpdtle

ORGANIZATION: 16 there _a plan that clearly governs the sequence from thebegintiftg tb the end of the response and is the plan effectively signaled?

= no discernible plan2 = inferrable plan and/or discernible sequence; some aignalS may be

present_3 = Controlled, logical sequence with a clear plan

SUPPORT/ELABORATION: To what extent is the_ narratiVe_ developed by_ detailsthat describe and explain the narrative elements (character, aCtion, Andgetting)?

1 = vague or sketchy details that add little to th..: clarity of theresponse

2 = details that are clear and specific IAA &re liSt-like, or UheVen ornot developed

3 = well-developed details that enhance the cltrity of the response

SENTENCE_FORMATION: Are sentences correctly formed?

1 = many run-ons, "on-and-ons," fragments, and/or awkwardconstructions--may cause confusion

2 = some_run7ons, "on-and-ono," fragments, and/or awkwardconstructions--may cause confusion

3 = few errors and/or awkward constrUCtions-.-no confusion

NECHANICS: To_what extent_ _does the student use the conventions of standardwritten Englisb (e.g. spelling) usage, capitalization, punctuation)?

I = many errors2 = some errors3 = few errors

-38-

Analytic Component:

FOCUS

181b-t! Since no_fourth7grade_student receivedan analytic rating of 1 in the category FoCuSia marker paper is not available for thatanalytic score point

-39-

# A/A 4 4 41 =1 4 6 A. 2Ir- - -LAVA -.0. _ .. 4 Jo ./---, - - Ad r

4,, AP A A 4 ,.., 0_ ii.igkem, ........A- .0:-. ,,.,,k.

Id .. .1 . A* Ap_..,,A _,444 711_ 1....lf ACA. ___f

/ 1Ar A .P. 4 -4 Arrow -1 * 1ft.041 A/ /...

/

il Al / -141.--avAl.- A 'T. A /204,7IMPI747 Ow.s ..0_,...1_ 49.040/ OA

..,..r, agrace .. - -,'MO' if _ ...... ft?' dam , A __veim r . . Alh-- --Aa - Ie Alr i..ANE.

ola.. ----,11,P./ I4#,Miller _A , A AA ' .. . ..,

4 _AL I.A_ -0-...- -. .. .... 4L . .A i ii . A . Ar' -,....m......r

/ i 4:0ar L

VMIIIMW4.ae. -rA Aw Ai -II/

.4.1F.:. gm"' _ ..110 -

A sr W

/1141.

- ---.2-.01,f Ail .0 . dj e/ tiff", _

or. 0_,A_ . A i ti...e.LO 0

....,,,, - ,&ire . 41. .4i /r,-,- , AI' 4 . 1 I _A.. A

- / /_rse'lar.-011ir

.4-f-.d.. .-7............ .. 1ZL4,- . A . 401! ..r- #.* ... _A-.. 0°

AfAI 1 A _At Ar .4...eAll .. -a. 4 , A - AP" ,:i.....S. A ..0.4"

/ / MEM, ...I #

../.- -. 41I - A if t 41P.. A _ 4 atm g Al 1 - Al. IP eir ' I/ Agar iIra

140 ;111 _&..1.40 .40, A-/ A -Air

41(..11'1 ..11 - OANII /a - .1._.,

,A / A/

el......... -- AI-A or dela --% OM_ ..... 4L I. _ WKS _-_7°I.1 A sr./ a - w ati- - 0.,4_..-L_,r-

4...-- - A. 1If- , AL._ _..° ..0

- -,dmit-Swirfr,IAL' . . __L _41AK AL-

er ' , ."r - __..dA -11.- milm;' 7- 4 ii - e A-,- ,,,- ......,....-,..- a . A A _ALI .e.._ air a _.".. .4..----

441 0 . I

Score Point 2:

The writer drifts somewhat from the main theme (spending a night in the

scariest house in town) and concentrates instead on the day's physical

attributes ("he was brown ana it was a collie . . . Corie was a male

dog") and the dog s name ("Melesa never told us her dog's name then she

promest to tell us when her dog comes out . ."). The main theme is

never completely developed so that the drift is more noticeable.

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE 4 WRITING SAMPLE

/1A2.0_ru2L k-

A-Ikent:

r.A

Jcore Point: 3

The writer stays on'topic throughout the response; the papen is _unified__

by the dorn_i_nant_top_i_c_t_he_ night I spent in that house."

Page 5 50

Analytic Component:

ORGANIZATION

-43-

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE 4

rib

.

1,"..F%TING SAMPLE

S-Co-r-e

The writer has no discernible plan; the sentences can be rterra_n_g_ed_ in--

any order as the ideas are not linked into a plan.

Page 5

Llo COMNECT1CUT MASTERY TEST GRADE Iat)

WRITING SAMPLE

O ScOre POint: 2

There is an inferable plani the signals are nreent with a spgilpnrp nf

events but thP writer needs ta_reorpaniLe_his writing in_order to im-rove

fluenc);. There are two sentences inserted in the text which are

_logical sequence: ("I tried to get help but knoW one was there" "The house

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TES/ GRADE 4 WRITING SAMPLE

E nr) o y W.a; Cd o r) \Am&p_c_rvf. -hyio Amy ioo

robb2.r _taA_4-1-Ne nt

\A/R. ,441-ri

Score Point: 3

The writer has a controlled logical sequence with a clear plan. Every

idee_is_i_n_a_carrect-log4r.al sequence.

;.

Analytic Component:

SUPPORT/ELABORATION

Nate: _Since_no_fourth-grade Student reddiVedan analytic rating of 3 in the category Support/Elaboration; a marker paper is not available forthat analytic score point.

55

-,11EA

-.W. Aeg I

41 ..0w. w l 11 I AS. -al, A.-AA-LA- $.6/* g A Am

_ ke. . A

tit

E

der Alg4I

_..41.0710 WAWA. AmiPr.

tiO .

Ala

.m.e.MOONaa.

01.11 /ame a AALAdrar 1 4

.11.,. ..- dr.. 4 i ...... ar / .. it I .Alvaro ....-..... A -

f I........

4 i...w.s..,

II'' AA-- _A i--... .0.1 lk T III 44 ,di

I At ...drew Br .4...411111 0.: .... AO. 1 . '/I I ..4 A ''1 I

....-.:0 4,.. ...............- ,.. -.SA--..1,1 - IN .....: A,........_ ...4 a. AS._--

a

A-,AMM

aa- A ls .1 /

! Ad-s&

. a 4 ilk _ b 5 k._,.I-

Ar AA A / Ai - ar [ Aa _c_

.... :.-A a er F. 64 , Ag .. ar

.1. I"EA WA

=Wi 1 I1.111 I Iair

a. a

IA

Score Point: 1

This response contains sketchy details which add little to the clarity of the

response. The paper is almost a vocabulary list of scary house terminology

("bats, ghosts, trap doors, attic was the scariest").

41'

II

'411

0

Is

in;m

k

tk

.16

4

111

114

4

II

4/411

1

11I1

14

Score Point: 2

The details in this response are clearbutnot lovpnly devsaaaPcL ThE

writer uses non-specific details: "thingsba_g_host_pickingup thing . something moving s_omethinn was hnictiii_me." Thp

details are not well=deVelOped and do not enhancp thp clarity of thp

ros_potit0.

4

Analytic Component:

SENTENCE FORMATION

-53- 60


Score Point: 1

This response contains many run-ons which cause SOW' confucihn


Aga 41.=.=1M.M. ab,

45-frzed Gurrws, 1.-.45.c4a74

Score Point:

In this paper there are some run-ons causing some confusion to the reader.

Page 5 6


Score Point: 3

This response contains few errors so that there_is na_confusion. Most of

the sentences are correctly formed.

Piijé 5

63

Analytic Component:

MECHANICS


-S.-carePo n 1

.

This a er/-2_2_1aLs,.aimal-rror r .f,at inc Saing_kacLiaa-W:

Pape A


014 Ouce _

101 ..4. 44-14 Alukiki, 6thitm _Av-e /47_; && /1 4

i ,

_ih___.-4e- Jz. eili .t ili e

h e or S-0-01--t 77-0-4-4/4 7iion ke ci- iA *' A.Ljrndy .d-AA,r4

ndauicuQcs,

riscr ref:10j

f etn9 r pi/5.

A.

vi n5. 1- i 0.4--hurve Andretd -Axv.

rt.t rVett5 rC Lon.

As 8 a

_Score Paint: ,2

Thit i-es_ponshas_ tior1113 _errors_ in spe-11-inThand-p-u-n-e-tuat4e-n.

Ipas raw

6 6


riN

E.6SEVtCYCA

tk

Scnre PoAnt:

Thete are few errors InAtechanics. Theiter has a good_command of the

convention's of written standar: English.

V .

Page 5 67

APPENDIX F

Sample Grade Four Mastery Test SCOrd Reports

o Class Diagnostic ReportMathematics

- Language Arts

O School by Class Report- Mathematics- Language Arts

o District by School Report- Mathematics- Language Arts

o Parent/Student Diagnostic Report

68

COXNECTICUT MASTERY-TESTING PROGRAM

REBNC

GRADE 4 FORM A A

SCHOOL DISTRICT X

JANE _migrant'

AIS, SMITH

TESTING DATtn-85

NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED: 22

RR AAENERLN

LIIAAL . i riivYHEIIS E E D

0 L _ L

ENIENSDEBIT A L

CLASS DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

THEPSYCHOLOGICALCORPORATION

tl

MATHEMATICS

PAGE

NUMBER OF STUDENTS NEEDING

FURTHER DIAGNOSIS

IN MATHEMATICS: 2

mArr,

CRITEPIA

OF ITEMS

NomBERRERcENT

OF STUDENTS

MASTERING EACH oBJECTIvE

CLASS SCHOOL

MATHEMATIMOBJECTIVES TESTED- CORRECT

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS

t DEIERMINE,J AND_ 10 MORE/tESS THAN A NUMBER

2, WEND TATTERNS

1 ORDER WHOLE NUMBERS

4. REWRITE NUMBERS WITH EVADED NOTATION

5, REWRITE NUMBERS 13Y REGROUPING

8, IDENTIFY FRACTIONAL PARTS

7, MATE MULT/DIV FACTS TO PICTURES

COMPUTATIONAL SICLLS

6, ADD5UBTRACT CTS TOJI

:9. ADDISATRACTAIITHOIIT REGROUPING

10. ADD WITH REGROUPING

It ESTIMATE SUMS/DIFFERENCES

12. MULT1PLY/DMDE BY 2, 5, 10

PRoBLEM SOLVING/APPLICATIONS

13. IDENTIFY OBJECTS/NUMBERS IN ARRAYS

14. READ/INTERPRET GRAPHS

15. READ/INTERPRET TAPL13

ft IDENTIFY NUMBER SENTENCES FROM PICTURES

17, IDENTIFY NUMBER SENTENCES FROM PROBLEMS

18, SOLVE STORY PROBLEMS WITH 4/,

SOLVE STORYIPROBLEMS WITH EXTRA INFO

201 IDENTIFY NEEDED INFO IN PROBLEMS

MEANANENT/GEOMENT

21. MEASURE LENGTH/IDENTIFY UNITS

22. ESTIMATE LENGTH/AREA

O. TELL TIME

24. DETERmINE VALUE OF A CE_COINS

-25 awl Y SHAPES/ANGP::DES

-TOT% AUMBER-OF OBJEC.,%11 MASTERED

mmmimmOmOwww,4.,ore.,,,Iimm.

1/4THEVATlCS REMEDIAL qANDATiCL

711:71Errgrtn: TH ME

Ts STUDEKTV-ST_RMETURNED DIAGNOSIS.

3 OE 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OE 4

3 OF 4

I or 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OE 4

3 OE 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF II

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

21/ 95

19/ 86

21/ 95

20/ 91

Ill 5014/ 64

14/ 64

le/ 82

22/100

21/ 95

10/ 4519/ 86

19/ 86

20/ 91

82

n/ 68

20/ 91

17/ 77

19/ 86

16/ 73

20/ 91

19/ 8618/ 82

19/ 86

21/ 95

PR MN MN MINNNUMDER OF ITEMS CORRECT'

low.

COPIGHT-011185 BYOO1iiECTICO STATE BOARD OF ETHIOATION ALL IGH S SESEIDIEDJARIMNISA

1#-0F0

43/ 9837/ 84

41/ 93

40/ 9126/ 59

33/ 75

27/ 61

39/ 89

44/100

41/ 93

20/ 45

41/ 93

41/ 9340/ 91

39/ 8933/ 75

42/ 9538/ 86

40/ 91

36/ 82

38/ 86

33/ 7540/ 91

41/ 93

431 98

DISTRICT

183/ 97

170/ 90

179/ 95

180/ 95

125/ 66

151/ 80

126/ 67

178/ 14

184/

178/ 94

101/ 53

178/ 94

178/ 94

181/ 96

176/ 94

143/ 76

184/ 98

169/ 90

165/ 88

172/ 91

164/ 87

153/ 81

178/ 95

175/ 93

-184/ 9P,

:1

. TIME4UPNUMBER/PERCENT OF STUDENTS

8 LOW REMED

9 2/ 9 3/ 7

Copp ighi g 19 84 by Hocourt Hulce Jnyanny,Lh, or. ImmusumayizuswormlitOWORaranwie

70

I I

CONNECTICUT MASTFRY-TISTING-PROGRAM-,

GRADE 4 FORM A

SCHOOL DISTRICT X

LANE -WORRYMR, JONES

002

TESTING DATE: 14-85

NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED: 22

CLASS DIAGNOSTIC REPCRT

THE PSYCHOLOGICh CORPORATION

II

In

T

3)

.0

4

67

LANGUAGE ARTS

AII AILRCLRLICHLK AZ

EY It

E YB

NUMBER OF STUDENTS NEEDING

FURTHER DIAGNOSIS

IN WRiTING: 4

IN READING: 5

LANGUAGE ARTS OBJECTIVES TESTED

MASTERY

CRITERIA

0 OF ITEMS

CORRECT

PAGE 1

NUMBER/PERCENT

OF STUDENTS

MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

WRITIK MECHANICS

1, CAPITALIZATION &PUNCTUATION

2. SPELLING, HOMONYMS, AND

ABBREVIATIONS

3. AGREEMENT

(VERB TENSE, SULECTiVERB,

AND PRONOUN REFERENTS)

4. LCCATING INFORMATION

(SCHEDULE% MAPS,JARE

CINTENTS1 TITLE PAGE, AND

DICTIOKARY)

LISTENING COMPREHENSION

5. LITERAL

t INFERENTIAL & LVALUATIVE

READING COMPREHENSION

1, UTERAL

5, INFERENTIAL

EVALUATIVE

pon2!i

OF 9

11 OF IS

8 OF 11

SCHCOL

21t 95 39/ 89

19/ 86 40/ 91

201 91 37/ 84

DISTRICT

168/ 90

149/ 81

171/ 92

20/ 91 39/89 170/ 91

5 OF ?

0 OF 13

20/ 91 163/ 88

145/ 78

9 OF 12

10 OF 14

OF 10

1, 1, 11 11 14id 1J

I I

1 1 j4 1 1

1,1 1 1 1

i

36/8233/75

=VI !AMU al I137/ 73

AVERAGE /I 0 OBJECTIVES NTASTERED

TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

, 1,1,4 NI1V XV$ MIA \%;$ N.Stt. s4,1 .:,',1%.(i1/4%4`,,\,,i''' A *

111111111111111111111111111REMEDIAL

ARHOLISTIC-MEASURES-OF-RIM AND -RE XING

WRITING SAMPLE

ANALYTIC WRITING INFORMATION"'

FOCUS

ORGANIZAJION

SUPPORDELABORAIION

MECHANICS

SENTENCE-FORMATION

NUMBERIPERCENT OF STUDENTS

BELOW REMEDIAL STANDARD

DEGREES OF READING POWER (MP) e OMINPIIIINNIMMIPPPPIIPIIIIMIR4iihisaaaxacmaamii,r4ixaminiAlaidicisai,niaoimkrima '1===.c..T..'INDICATES AMORE BELOW THE REPEDIALSTANDARD, THrLITUDEYJ MOT WIVE FURTH R DIAGNOSIS,

"ANALYTIC WRITING INFORMATION IS DIM ONLY FOR THOSE STUDENTS WHO SCORED BELOW TH REMEDIAL STANDARD,

" I NEEDS REMEDIAL ASSISTANCE 1.11ORDERLINE PERFORMANCE 3 SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

OJ 19B4 by Mir ( Olif I brace Jrwanoirith, Inc

COPYRIVI If BY

CONNECTICUT STATE1)0ARD OF EDUCATION

ALL RIGHTS ITESETIvEll PRINIE1:01 Us A

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM

morarneriisinimmimniE PSYCHOLOGICAI t:ORPORATION

SCHOOL BY CLASS REPORT

MATHEMATICS

GRADE 4 FORM A-

SCHOOL DISTRICT X

LANE EIBENTARY

TESTING DATE: Ie-es

PAGE 1

SCORES REFLECT NUMBER/PERCENT OF

STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE Eartool

1002

NUMBER OF STUDE"ir*,. FED

MATHEW TICS ni,F.CTIVES TESTED

22 22

MASTERY

CRITERIA #1 % #1%

CONCEPTI',PIDERSTANDKGS.

1. DETEi0LA:4/110 MORE/LESS THAN A NUMBER

Z WEND NITER%

1 ORDER WHOLE NUMBERS

4. REWRITE NUMBERS WITH EXPANDED NOTATION

5. REWRITE NUMBERS BY REGROUPING

8. IDENTIFY FRACTIONAL PARTS

7. RELATE MULT/DIV FACTS TO PICTUR,3

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS

8. ADD/SUBTRACT FACTS TO '8

9 ADD/SUBTRACT WITHOUT rIEGROUP!NG

10, ADD WITH REGROUPING

it ESTIVATESUMSID1FEFENCES

12, MULTIPLY/DIVIDE BY Z 5 10

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPLICATIONS

11 IDENTIFY OBJECTOIUMERS IN ARRAYS

14, READ/INTERPRET GRAPHS

15, READ/INTr;PRET TABLES

18. IDENTIFY NUWER SENTENCES 'IROM PICTURES

17, IDENTIFY NUMBER SENTENCES FROM PROBLEMS

18. SOLVE STORY PRODLEMS WITH -+/-

TO. SW/IVORY/ROLM Wr.H_EXTRA INFO

20, IDENTIFY N3EDED INFO IN PRALEMS

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

21, MEASURE LENGTH/IDENTIFY UNITS

22 ESTIMATE LENGTH/AREA

23. TELL TIME

24. DETERMINE VALUE OF A SET OF COINS

25. IDENTIFY SHAPES/ANGLES1SIDES

AVERAGE NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

".'llgEIERIPERCENI OF slurAls BELOW RmobaL syANDAR,

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 Or 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF '

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

, 3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OE 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

21/ 95

19/ 86

21/ 95

20/ 91

II/ SO

14/ 64

14/ 64

18/ 02

22/100

21/ 95

10/ 45

19/ 86

19/ 86

20/ 91

18/ 82

15/ 68

20/ 91

17/ 77

19/ 86

16/ 73

20/ 91

19/ 86

18/ 82

19/ 86

21/ 95

22/100

'18/ 82

20/ 91

20/ 91

IS/ 68

19/ 86

13/ 59

21/ 95

22/100

20/ 91

10/_45

22/100

22/100

20/ 91

21/ 95

18/ 82

22/100

21/ 95

21/ 9S

20/ 91

18/ 82

14/ 64

22/100

22/100

22/100

'41 4440.4J.44 ,' `.4)0.4 41.4 44

1=1=1

SCHOOL DISTRICT

189

#1% # 1 % #1 % #1% #1%

43/ 98 183/ 97

37/ 64 170/ 90

41/ 93 179/ 95

40/ 91 190/ 95

26/ 59 125/ 66

33/ 75 151/ 80

27/ 61 126/ 67

39/ 89 178/ 94

44/100 114/ 97

41/ 93 178/ 94

20/ 45 1011 53

41/ 93 118/ 94

41/ 93 178/ 94

40/ 91 181/ 96

39/ el 176/ 94

33/ 75 1431 76

42/ 95 184/ 98

38/ 86 1691 90

40/ 91 165/ 88

36/ 82 172/ 91

38/ 8 164/ 87

33/ 7: 153/ 81

40/ 91 178/ 95

41/ 93 '_.78/ 93

43/ 98 164/ 98

M,81M1

"PEMEDIA1 STANDARD 15 Si OF 103 ITEMS CORRECT,

CopyrIblo 1984 by Harcourt brace Joyanyylch, Int

COPYRIGHT 4:1911BY

CONNECTICUT STATE GOAROOF EDUCMION

AL RIGHTS-RESERVEVPRINTED IN U.S.A.

71

_CONNECTICUT_MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM

GRADE 4 FORM A

SCHOOL DISTRICT X

LANE ELEMEIMY

TESTING DATE: 10-85

SCORES REFLECT NUMBER/PERCENT OF

STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED

LANGUAGE ARTS OEJECTIVES TESTED

SCHOOL BY CLASS REPORT

THE PSYCHOLOGICALCOPPORATION

111!)

LANGUAGE ARTS

RAGE 1

ww.,,..111.1MOIMIIINNIIN

Nmimmommout 11011,

: re'

#002

MASTERY

-Dr1

WRITING.MECFLANICS

1 CAPITAIIZATION & PUNCTUATION

HomoNyms, AND ARBREVIATIONS

AGREEMENT

(VERB TENSE, SUBJECTNERB,


4, LOCATING INFORMATION

rILES, HAPLY-a OFOONTENTS &

. . . TITLE_ PAGEANDDICTIONARY)


LITERAL

INFERENTIAL& EVAL4ATIVE


LITERAL

, INFERENTIAL

EVALUATIVE

9 OF 12

7 OF 9

11 OF 15

8 OF 11

18/ 82

21/ 95

17/ 77

19/ 86

21/ 95

19/ 86

20/ 91

20/ 91

OF 7 19/ 86 20/ 91

9 OF 13 19/ 86 18/ 82

e OF 12 18/ 82 18/ 8210 OF 14 17/ 77 16/ 73

110 / VS 6/ IS

_# 1% 11111111 #1%

-SCHOOL

44

# 1%

DISTRICT

11%

HOUSTIC MEASURES OF WRITING AND READING

..................................................

WRITINaSAMPLE_

NUMBER/PERDENT PRODUCING VATERIAL THATAS'

WELL WRITTEN W. DEVELOPED SUPPORTIVE DEAL

GENERALLY WELL ORGANIZED W URMA NVE-DETP

MINIMALLY PROFICIENT

BELOY/ REMIALSTANDARIY

si.amaxiwatEgr:

AttN,Vats,".4.444.11:0:Ack0:,:d.Y.0.44,krAhlbOa4bx0VCC0.403.:0145MMIAMI4 WW. X1{..1pati, snlaNdch.,,ta.;#

HOLISTIC

11111111111111111111111111111INESZEFMNYIT:=1=1=1111=1wri=min Iwo=

IIVINWAIME=111 lie Mill IIMISTAZEorro iontl Nam imimi sounum urmrtvAr.i. ion;.,Lioits.VallontaltaMilinMe WatitEMEMANCAMMIXIMMOthaklanato.otiatiONOlgAMOWN4h..,,A..?:..x,..:.,: rNagISIMEOWITAVZ

-2-0R-0

39/ 89

40/ 91

37/ 84

39/ 89

168/ 90

149/ 81

171/ 92

ITO/ 91

39/ 89 163/ 88

37/ 84 145/ 78

36/ 82 158/ 84

33/75 137/ 73W 7I1 UM/ 7A

# /1-0E-STUDENTSAT STATED LEVEL

IsatAlizaittm.44

#)%

DEGREES OFREADING_POWERIDRP)

NUM858/PERCENT COMPREHENDING MATERIALS:

TYPICALLY USED AT GRADE 4 OR KUHR

TYPICAUXUSED-BELOWGRADE 4 BUT ABOVE

THLREMEcat STANDARD_

OW '01 1.10 A'44:10-U,.,1A:A.*.,.,..

DRPIROT

SCORE

50+

#/%

2 5/ 8411 el N 41

MALOM:= MIRZALLI

BELOW 41 1121111111011111111111111MMIONIMEN

le- 41) 01

E.111111., ,111/ 25 30/ 6

41. A 1.0,1 t' OXA.. 410

*Zatamai rItAxtroWL4Z4A4AIWAILTA kaimitntal NUIRAMS221 Mau= LitINISSIA lialottrtal hakalaablki

AVERAGE NUM ER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED cANGIJAGE ARTS

AVERAGE HOLISTIC WRITING SCORE

AVERAGE ORP UNIT SCORE

11111111111111111111111E1211111101111COPYRIGHT 1185 BY

CONNECTICUT STATEBOARD CC-EDUCATION

AU. RIGHTS RESERVED, PRINTED IN VGA

'REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 1 FON wRITING,

, I.L :I 1. I : READING_

11111411164Axa,iih.r4trautio imriwirkgria 44,p,h,hprimori

5.6

ISLVIMAI

-r

0

0

Copyright 1.) 1984 In .HaIrmal rr.r IIVMIIIVIIh, roc

75 16


GRADE 4 FORM A

SCHOOL DISTRICT X

TESTING DATE 10-85

DISTRICT BY SCHOOL REPORT

THEPSYCHOLOGICALMARTANN

MATHEMATICS

SCORES ilEFLECT NUMBER/PERCENT OF

ELEMENTARY

ELEMENTARY

ELEMENTARY

STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE ELEMENTARY

PAGE I

DISTRICT

-NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED 44 36 30 42 37

MATHEMATICS ORJECTIVES TESTEDMASTtRYCRITERIA #/% #1 % #1% #1% #1%

INM/1..114.

#1 %

1139

# % #1% #04

4


I. DETERMLNII ANI710 MORE/LESS THAN A NUMBER

EXTENDPATERNS

3, ORDEROOLENUMBERS

t REWRITE NUMBERS WITH EXPANDED NOTATION

5, REWRITE NUMBERS BY REGROUPING

IDENTIFY FRACTIONAL PARTS

7, RELATE MULTIDIV FACTS TO PICTURES


8. ADD/SUBTRACT FACTS TO 19

9. ADD/SUBTRACT WITHOUT REGROUPING

10, ADD WITH REGROUPING

II, ESTIMATE5UMS/DIFFERENCES

12. MULTIPLY/DIVIDE BY Z 5, 10

PROBLEMSOLVINGAPPLICATIONS

13. IDENTIFY OBJECTSINUMBERS IN ARRAYS

14, READ/INTERPRET GRAPHS

I. READ/INTERPRET TABLES

It IDENTIFY NUMBER SENTENCES FROM PICTURES

17. IDENTIFY NUMBER SENTENCES FROM PROBLEMS

18, SOLVE STORY PROBLEMS WITH +1.

19, SOLVE STORY PROBLEMS WITH EXTRA INFO

20, IDENTIFY NEEDED INFO IN PROBLEMS

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

21. MEASURE LENGTH/IDENTIFY UNITS

22, ESTIMATE LENGTH/AREA

23, TELL TIME

24, DETERMINE VALUE OF A SET tr COINS

25. IDENTIFY SHAPES/ANGLES/SIDES

toi,;;,,,,,,;'4v W.,6ffimxv. NVO*0.4;..

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

1 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 01,4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 Of 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

I OF

43/ 98

37/ 84

41/ 93

40/ 91

26/ 59

31/ 75

271 61

39/ 89

44/100

41/ 93

20/ 45

41/ 93

W 93

40/ 91

39/ 89

33/ 75

42/ 95

38/ 86

40/ 91

36/ 82

38/ 86

33/ 75

119/ 91

41/ 93

43/ 98

33/ 92

31/ 86

34/ 94

35/ 91

24/ 67

31/ 86

22/ it

35/ 97

35/ 97

34/ 94

15/ 42

34/ %

33/ 92

35/ 97

33/ 92

27/ 75

36/100

32/ 89

28/ 78

32/ 89

32/ 89

26/ 72

33/ 92

34/ 94

36/100

30/100

28/ 1

30/100

30/100

201 67

24/ 80

21/ 70

29/ 97

29/ 97

27/ 90

22/ 73

28/ 93

29/ 97

2S/100

28/ 97

23/ 79

29/100

25/ 86

27/ 93

28/ 97

28/ 93

27/ 90

29/100

27/ 93

27/ 93

40/ 95

39/ 93

40/ 95

40/ 95

34/ 81

34/ 81

32/ 76

41/ 98

42/100

40/ 95

23/_55

4/100

0/ 95

41/ 98

41/ 98

32/ 76

42/100

38/ 90

37/ B8

39/ 93

34/ 81

34/ 81

40/ 95

39/ 93

41/ 98

37/100

35/ 95

34/ 92

35/ 95

21/ 57

29/ 78

24/ 65

34/ 92

34/ 92

36/ 97

211 57

33/ 89

35/ 95

36/ 97

35/ 95

28/ '76

35/ 95

36/ 97

33/ 89

37/100

32/ 86

33/ 89

36/ 97

34/_92

37/100

AVERAGE NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED21.3_ 22,5 22.2

NUMBERIPERCENTOFtTUDENTSBELOWREMEDIALSWIDAND" 0V-0-1Or

"REMEDIAL STANDARD IS II OF 100 ITEMS CORRECt

183/ 97

170/ 90

1791 95

180/ 95

125/ 66

151/ 80

126/ 67

178i 94

184! 97

178/ 94

101/ 53

178/ 94

178/ 94

181/ 96

176/ 94

143/ 16

184/ 98

169/ 90

165/ 88

172/ 91

164/ 87

153/ 81

178/ 95

175/ 93

184/ 98

CopyttO 19844 HarrnuftBrAteAvanoulth,hic

A.ft,

COPYRIGHT 9111511Y

CONNECTICUT STATEBOARD OF EDUCATION

-ALL-RICATS-PaRIED,PRINTitriti

;;;131141141111=1118111i0111S1=1111THE PS T OE OGICA C,0 RPOITATIO

T i3.['

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM_

DISTRIC REPORT

GRADE 4 FORM A

SCOL DISTRICT X

TESTING DATE 1045

SCORES REFLECT NUMBER/PERCENT-OF-

STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

MIININWMOIMIA

ELEMTAPY

ELEMENTARY

ELEMEMRY

ELEMENTARY

LANGUAGE ARTS

PAGE 1

NUMBER DF STUDENTS-TESTED-------

LANGUAGE ARTS OBJECTIVES TESTED

WRITING MECHANICS

1. CAPITALIZATION & PUNCTUATION

SPELLK HOMONYMS, AND ABBREVIATIONS

AGREEMENT

(VERB_ TENSE, SUBJECTNERB,


4. LOCATING INFORMATION

(SCHEDULES, MAPS, TABLE OF coNTENTs &

TITLE PAGE, AND DICTIONARY)

USTENING COMPREHENSION

1 LITERAL

t INFERENTIAL & EVALUATIVE


T LITERAL

S, INFERENTIAL

. EVALUATIVE

MASTERY

CRITERIA_

OF 12

CIF

11 OF 15

33/ 92

25/ 69

31/

8 OF11 32/ 89

5 OF 7 I/ 78OF 13 2t/ 61

OF 12

10 OF 14

28/ 78

22/ 61

25/ 64

# % Hill.,%DISTRICT

i5/ 1319/- 76

27/100

3&/ 90

38/ 10

40/ 95

33/ 89

27/ 73

36/ 97

25/ 93 39/ 93 35/ 95

25/ 93

W 81

26/ 90

25/ 86

24/ 83

36/ 86

36/ 86

34/ 81

3// 7437/ 88

3F/ 95

281 76

34/ 92

26/ 70

30/ 81,

168/ 90

149/ a;

171,' 92

170/ 91

163/ 88

145/ 78

1W 84137/ 73

147/ 7

HOLISTIC MEASURES OF WRITING AND READING

tfm0:+411kkr).CaziiiiP.M:Nee P::e:q);,

WRITING SAMPLE

NUMBER/PERCENT PRODUCING MATERIAL THAT IS;

TEN *DEVELOP SUP RTIV TA1

GENERALLY WELLORGANIZED W, SUPPORTIVE DEUX

MINIMAUJAGFICIENT._

I S

DEGREES OF READING POWER(ORP)11

NUM

.voret,TJJANY4.1*.n.,):001A2.vhrei'Jc,4.41.+4.;.',11.1.1.M.9.114.'

HOLISTIC

SCORE

; 111# I %-OF STU

AT STATED L

mum.I 'LAM! IFIMIltrin IIFMNIWA'4I I 111111111

mull111111111

g OR 6 Ironnrammezawmirririrammummimmiturium11:I :Jia.,J1,,i,.,,,iiikaniaaiJammtiVAIT.MLIUMMlika1.18,1411129,V)1'.18M9V+141111.01,154:119141W141ME.1:J1.1,44... J . .

OR 3

DRP UNIT

-SCORE #1 % #1 % tl % _#1 % #1 %

frALL-Y-UlfD-AT-CFMDE4-OR HIGHER

PICALLY USED BEM GRADE 4 BUT ABOVE

STANDARD

50+

MO 4911 A

, y s

A

, o

RPM IFIA11111779

1,111/111111

111 # % Em

..;,..a;--,15MWILAilr'W,ILI 4/ 10 IEZIMIIIMIIIIMEM1

K'sitAtiq;:.; 4'...W.L,A 5: ...,65:...ti:1414.:tAiatafa,V.,,41,1,t4 '4894,4114,1EvaiVA),11f1t,',1,..1,9,X**Jfii:4-a,t1;14 toia7/JeiMa

AVERAGE NUMBER Of OBJECTIVES IMSTERED IN tANGUAGE ARTS

AVIMGE-St.SPORE--AVERAGE-DPW-SCORE

COPYRIGHT" 19111Y_

CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD Of EDUCATION

KID IN U,SA

mum 8.0 IMOD IIIII11111111111120111111111MINEEI

1111111111 MN ULM Eta Immo.-

'REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 4 FOR VIRIT1N1__

mREMEDIAL STANDARD IS 41 GRP UNITS FOR READING

30/ 16

'Mart1.1 go II I I 14 1 I

MpriOhl 19 1984 hj HArcoort Orko monvich: In, 1191111111191119.111.1919110*00104140400.01vgam

79

limfte..0.1110MINIV

41111111.

Connect cut

MagOry TOO ng

PrograitiGRADE 4

PARENT/STUDENT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

For specific information about your child's scores inside, see the back cover of this folder.

For general information about your !ical district's testing program; please contact your superintendent of schools.

For further information on the statewide mastery testing program, contact: Connecticut State Department of_Education,

Office of ReiParch and Evaluation, Box 2219, Hartford, Connecticut 06145, (203) 5664001 or 4008.

8182

tifMATICS

SfliDENT OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS FOR

GRADE.. SCHOOL

[ORM DISTRICT

11 ACHE.R TESTING DATE

CONNECTICUT

MASTERY TESTING

PROGRAM

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPI RATION

HARCOURT 1111AU IOVANOVICH, r 1115H115

GRADE 4 REPORT PART 1

_OBJECTIVES TESTEDMASTERCRITERA _

NUMBER OF ITEMS CORR CT SCOW:


1. Identify the number one more, one less, ten mo.rn or ten less than a given number

2. ktend patterns involving numbers and attributes

3. Order whole numbers

4 Rewrite numbers usinviipanded notation

5. Rewrite numbers by regrouping tens and ones

f; ldentily_fractionai parts of-regionsand sets from pictures I or halves, thirds, fourths and sivihs7. Relate multiplication and division farts_th rertangulararrays

3 01 4

ol 4

3 al 4

oi 4

3 of 4

of 4

3 of 4


8. Know addition and subtraction 'acts to 18

:9 Add and atraitone and two digit- numbers.withOut N.grouping

10 Add one and two digitnunthers with regrouping

11 ESttmate sums and differences to 100

12 MiilliP1Y ariddWide by 2, 5, and 10

PROBLEM SOLVING IAPPLICATIONS

....

13. Identify objects or numbers that door do not belong in a collection, matrix or array14 Read and interpret bar graphsind pictographs

15, bad and interpret data from tables and charts

16 identify or write number seniences from pictures

17. Identify number sentences from additionor subtraction story problems18 Solo simple story problems invbkring addition or subtraction

Sokie and identify number sentences in sIrnple story problems, involving addition and subtraction; with extraneous information20 ldenlify needed information in problem situations

3014

1 01 4

3 01 4

3 of -4

3 Of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

3 of4

3 of 4

3 01 4

3 of 4

3 61 4

MEASUREMENT1GEOMETRY

21. Measure length and identify appropriate until for measuring length aml distance

2.2 Estimate lengths and areas .

21 Tell time lathe neatest hour, half hour and guar' :r hour uSing analdi and diiitai dOCki24 Determine the value ol a set 01 coins

25. Identify shapes, angles and sides\_

3 of 4

of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

3 of 4

TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

NUMBER OF ITEMS CORRECT

(Remedial Stahded is69 Of 100 iteit corrett)

8384

r-LANGUAGE ARTS

STUDENT OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS FOR

GRADE:

FORM:

TEACHER:

SCHOOL:

DISTRICT:

JESTING DATE:

CONNECTICUT

MASTERY TESTING

PROGRAM

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORK' fl ION

'MOM UAU IOVANOVICH, Pla1.11111B5

GRADE 4 REPORT PART 2

rOBJECTIVES TESTED

NU

MASTERY CRITERIA

MBER OF ITEMS CORRECTSCORE

WRITING MECHANICS

1. Capifalization arid Pünctuation

2, Spelling Word Clidice, Homonyms; and Abbreviations

3. Agreement (verb tense, subject-verb, ahd 'pronoun referent)

9 of 12

-7 of 9_

11 Of 15

LOCATING INFORMATION

4. Schedules, Maps, Table of Contents and Title Page, Dktionary 8 o111


' 5. Literal (understands the meaning of ideas clearly stated Ily aspeaker)

6. inferential and Evaluative (understands the meaning of ideas not clearly slated; but implied; by a s'P',

and is abk to make critical judgment; about I hem)

5 of, 7

9 of 13


7. literal (understands the meaning of kleas deady stated within a passagel

8. Inferential (understands the meaning of ideas not stated, but implied, within a passage)

Evaluative (able to make critical judgments about statements and inferences within a passage)

9 -df 12

10 i..i 14

7 uf ie_9...__

(. TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

r--WRITING SAMPLE

Holistic Writing Score

medial Standard is 4 of 8

1DEGREES OF READINC POWER (DRP)

DRP Unit:

Remedial Standard is 41 DRP Units

Coy. hI &1945 by Conno i Stile Boyd ol fdvalion All rightt reirovd Printed in the United Slitti of Ar11131fl

8586

PARENT/STUDENT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

Dear Parent:

_Inside you will find the results of the Connecticut Mastery Test administered to your child earlier this fall. The test resultshelp to show you and the school district's professional stat f hcw kvell your child is performing on those skills identified bythe State of Connecticut as important for students entering fourth grade to have mastered.

These tests are designed to determine thr_ specific ckill levels of students. The test result will be used to.provide your school with information for use in assessing the progress of individual students over time;p.ovide your school with information based on which improvements in the general instrtl Hamal program canbe made; andprovide information on appropriate basic skills remedial assistance for students so identified

Mastery testing will occur each fall. All fourth graders starting in 1985 and all sixth and eighth grad startg in 1986 willbe tested

If you have any questions about these test resuks; please ask your child's teacher. The teacher will share with you otherobservations and recommendations based oil their experience m working with your son c: daughter during the last severalmonths.

Description of the TeStMathematics. The mathematics test assesses specific skills in the general areas of conceptual understandings, computa-tional skills; problem solving/applications, and measurement/geometry. Test items evaluate a student's ability to orderand rename numbers; compute and estimate sums and differences; read and interpret tables; graphs; and charts: solve abroad ranr- of problems; measure and estimate length and width; identifN shapes; and tell time.

Language Arts. The "Degrees of Reading Power" test is designed to measure a student's abihty to understand nonfictionEnglish prose at different levels of reading ability. The test measures reading ability on a scale of reading difficulty. Thistest is keyed to many available reading materials so teachers can use the scores to select reading material on an appro-priate level of difficulty for each student;

In addition to the "Degrees of Reading Power" section, the reading te includes narrative, expository, and persuasivepassages rn a variety of topics: These test :ins measure a student's al. ility in literal comprehemion, inferential or inter-pretive comprehension; and evaluative comprehension or critical readi..g The test also assesses listening comprehensionby using audic tapes.

Students win also be !,ed to write a composition cn a designated topic. The writing wi;i be judged on a student'sdemonstrated ability convey information in a coherent and organized fashion.

Writing skills are also assessed through a multiple-choiL:e test in the areas of usage; mechanics; locating information; andnotetaking.

APPENDIX G

rumber of Objectives Mastered

o Mathematics

o Language Avs

=73-

88

MATHEMATICS: MATHEMATICS:AVERAG'F. NUMBER OF PERCENT OF STUDENT5; ACHIEVING MASTERY BY

OBJECTIVES MASTERED NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

25

20

15

10

5

0

19.3

1985YEAR

This bar chart illustrates theaverage number of mathe-matics objectives mastered,statewide.

60

50

10

0%2%

8%

E0 1-6 7-12 13-18 19-24 25

NUMBER OF OBJECIIVZS MASTERED

This bar chart illustre,-3 the distribution of students, statewide, who masteredmathematics objectives within each of the six score categories.

-7

89

LANGUAGE ARTS:_AVERAGENUMBER_OF_OBJECTIVFS kiASTERED

1985

YEAR

This bar chart illustrates theaverage number of lan-guage arts objectives mas-tered; statewide:

LANGUAGE ARTS:PERCENT OFSTUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY BY

NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

40

35

30

25

20

15

10-

15%

35%

0-2 3-5

28%

6-8

NUMBE. 3F OBJECTIVES MASTERED

This bar chart illustrates the distribution of StudentS, StateWide, Whomastered objectives within each of the four score groupings.

-75-

9 0

Appendix H

State_by_District Report October_1985Grade Four Mathematics Test Results

91

CONNECTInT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORT

GRADE 4MATHEMATICS

DATE TESTED: 10-85

klastry Crilerla lot each Ojeda Is

3 to Mel Hems cord

REIndaSlindird 69

ol IN 100 Rens correct

DISTRICT

ANDOVER

ANSONIA

ASHFORD

AVON

BAKHANSTED

BERLIN_

BETHANY

BETHEL_ _

BLOOMFIELD

BOLIGN

BOZRAH

BRANFORD

BRIDGEPORT

BRISTOL

BROOKFIELD

BROOKLYN

CANAAN

CANTERBURY

CANTON

CHAPLIN

CHESHIRE

CHESTER

CLINTON

COLCHESTEI

COLEBROOK

COLLIVIA

CORNWALL

COVENTRY

OBJECTIVES TESTED

__CONCEPTUAL _

UNDERSTANDINGS

0. . ,0-- 0- _ ,_

k k, ,0

0 0 00_70: 0 11,2)00e 0- -A- ,.- 1 11- 0',-

ki-

0.,

11>

') ' °_ L -1-P

? Is-,1I -

0 t

1

0 0 0

PROBLEM SOLVING/

APPLICATIONS

MEASUREMENT/ TOTAL _

GEOMETRY MATHEMATICS

PAGE I

# OF

STUDENTS

TESTED

SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

29

144

43

147

30

137

155

214

180

45

21

195

1272

524

156

02

9

67

26

309

136

160

116

45

112

97 5 69 9 31 48

$ 6 76 9 28 72

6 436 6 84 9 42 70

4 97 $ 94 9 55 BS

6 97 7 90 9 53 83

4 97 8 89 9 39 72

4 96 0 38 84 5

4 93 7 9 32 79

2 91-7 / 91 44 72

4 100 7 7 Of 38 53

106 5 01 29 71

97 7 8 01 4IA3

80 5 6 9 146593 7 8 9". 74

95 8( 9 58

93 71 7 9 38

100 5 0 5 44

93 71 Ci 4638

t99 91 9 9 5' 0OD 7i 94 9 3 6

95 81 91 9 41 7

97 8 94 9518927 7 8 9 S 6

' 7 7 9 41, 6

1100

1 8 82 1

9 t 7 /3 1 5

3L3

i10016 4 8it

14:4 /6 9134 7 5

3 86 83

6 91 94

1 91 91

6 95 97

7 97

61 97_99

6

4

6

5

6

5

6

4

66

92

81

9

93

98

96100 89

93 9

68 9

89 9

00 95

16 9

87 95

93 96

87 97

89 98

a 0

90 96

93100

92 96

98_96

92100

89 92

5 95 96

82 0000

5 91 93

7 004100

92

78

96

86

93

85

90

94

96

00

93

96

85

95

97

86

9.3

00

87

00

96 96 9

26

48

43

36

25

26

27

24

32

26

4

18

53

_a

24

44

31

24

55

18

62

2

97

96

98

93

87

91

86

82

91

94.

90

78

98

92

97

97

93

95

91 001100

73 87 93

92 00600

ia 85 93

8 56

7 63

65

9 63

II 65

93

95

95

95

93

99

8 6 95

8 53 92

7 55 92

8 51 91

7 57 16

91 73 95

5 40

7 58

62

71 61

5 33100

8 66 97

9 79 99

6' 69 96

8 57 95

57 86

8 59 95

91 82100

8 51 91

8 79 72 79 6, 9t /At8 78 85 78 7 8 9 9

7 70 74 7 6 8 93 0

91 86 92 85 8 8 9 9

91 70 93 8 7 9 8 9

85 93 85 7 9 9 9

8' 85 89 78 8 8 8 9

9 75 8 84 7 91 9

7 72 81 73 6 8 8

9 76 78 96 6 8 8

7 52 71100 7 86 8

8 82 86 82 7 93 9

6 53 56 55 4 7 8

8 78 85 82 a 9

83 89 85 1331

8 70 77 7 7 8 9

6 89 6 8 C 88 81 87 81 7 9

88 93 8 81 9 91

81 85 69 8 81 9

94 83 9 7 80 9

8 92 94 8 83

88086 7 75 88'

8 73 8 7 70 91

0? 8210i1 91 731bo

8 6 89 64 69 91

9O9z 92 00100

96

92

86

9(

91

8 52 92 91

CItIS ConnotOcul Slolo Boyd ol EdotoIlo r fried Prold In Mind Wes of Amoco

9'

99

93

00

96

98

98

98

99

OD

00

99

00

96

97

96

97

00

00

OD

96

17.7

19;5

18;9

21;6

21;1

21;3

20.5

20.1

18.8

19.6

18.5

21.0

16.5

19.7

21)1

19.5

19.

20;1

22.0

19.6

20.8

21,5

20.1

22.6

19.1

22.5

20.1

34

18

26

7

7

13

14

25

22

24

40

15

20

11

13

15

8

6

14

16

24

12


DATE TESTED: NA

Mastery Crilerla bor each oNectIve Is

3of MIA IlernimectRemedial Standard Is 69

ot the 100 items coned


GRADE4.11.01.110.

,

MATHEMATICS

OBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEPTUAL LOMPUTATONAL

UNDERSMONGS SKILLS

PROBLEMSOLVING/

APPUCAPONN

v \,rt_0 k h k 0

a °A -_fr 1; 0 0 '.., 4-

1 irt ik i 0n-

q '3 ? 4,

'1_ 4/II

1

TOTAL

MATHEMATICS

PAGE 2

-1-1- ,n A y w

_ a_ _0 4-1_ 1' -°i- %.,,A.

SIII fa a-

4 Ar_

4

0- A A ______

DISTRICT

OF

STUDENTS

TESTED

CRENWELL

DANBURY

DARIEN

DEEP RIVER

DEOBY

EASTFORD

EAST GRANBY

EAST HADDAM

EAST HAMPTON

EAST HARTFORD

EAST HAVEN

EAST LYME

EASTON

EAST_WINITSOR

ELLINGTON

ENFIELD

FAIRFIELD

FARM1NGTC4

FRANKLIN

GLASTONBURY

GRANBY

GREENWICH

GRISWOLD

GROTON

GUILFORD

HAMDEN

HAMPTON

84

571

189

80

15

37

63

108

425

172

164

62

:66

109

372

45

577

137

28

286

94

394

127

414

249

353

22

imailmaimaimus

SCORES REPRESENT THE PFRCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

95 8 8 98 45 83 6 9, " 9. 3 8 0' 9,

8967 95 32 75 5 '1 9d 8. 3 84 9

9? 9 4 95 66 8" 5 9 9 5

0 81 86 00 38 8 5 8 9 41( 3 7 8 9

6 75 95 26 7 5

01 91101 93 53 7 73

01 8 0 97 54 7

c, 7 95 33 1 6

6 81 19 47 8

2 9 i 7 96 28 6 5

2 9 7 7 96 33 6 5

4 9 8 8 98 45 8 52

4 01 98 63 9 81

4 9 8 0 94 35 7 6

4 9 8 0 95 31 5 5

T 0 97 57 8 5

6 91 8 9 96 53 6 6

2 9 8 8 98 43 84 6

9 9 9 100 73 91 7

5 9 6 01100 32 89 6

9 8 8 99 45 70 5

9 8 8 98 40 79

2 9 8' 8 9748816

6 0 9 26 55 0

8 7 9 29 71 5

4 9 0 99 49 76 6

2 9 7_ B 99 39 84 5

5 8 5 7; 95 36 59 41

8 9 8 1_ 7 7 .0.

0 2 8 9 Jit

9 9 9' 5 0 T 101

1 9 2 8 7

9 8 7 9

9 8 1 81 7 9

9 9 8 21 7 0 0

91 9 9 3 0 13;' 9

01 9;; 9;- 2 9 94 01

0' 8 IP 2, 7' 8' 81

9 9 3 8 8 91

9 9 9.

988 2 8 7 9

9

9 9 9 7 9 9 9

9 9 8 3 8 8 9

9 8 91 9

9 9 41 $ 7 8 9

9 9 8 9 9

9 9

9 9 0 1 7 8 9

9 9; 9. 2, 91 8 9

9 9. 9h 0 8 9

91 9 6 82BL

8 8 7

81 7 7 8

8 81 9 93 9

9. 8 9 8. 8 8 9 9

7 5 7; 81. 6 J. 9 9

8 8 8 8 71 9 8 9

8 7 8 81 71 9 9 9

8 77.1 T 8 8; 90 7 7 83 8 9

8 8 8 0. 8 96 9

9 94 9 8

8 84 7 7

6 7 8 8 88 7 8 8 7 91 9

8 8 9184 91 8 9

9 8 8 8 8 91 9 9

9s 8 B 8 81

9 9 96

98. 8 8 7 0 9 9

It INS Connoclicul Stile Boyd 0 Edocollon All wits r toned PrIniod IOnItod Woo of Arno Ito

94

21,0

19.2

22.0

20.6

18.5

20.1

22.1

19.9

20,4

18,9

19.3

20 9

22,5

19,5

20,0

20.2

20.4

21,3

22,1

21,1

21.2

20,7

21,1

19,1

10,7

21.2

20,1

17,7

21

_5

10

28

8

10

22

17

10

2

10

14

1 1

1

6

7,

4

-8

12

II

19

21

15

27

95



GRADE 4

DATE TESTED:

WINN Criteria for each ohlecIlve Is

3 of the 4 Hems correct

Remedial_ Slaridaid Is 69

of the 100 Hems correct

OBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEPTUAL

UNDERSTANDINGS

COMPUTATIONAL

SKILLS

PROBLEMSODANG,

APPLICATIONS

MEASUREMENT/

GEOMETRY

TOTAL_

MATHEMATICS

PAGE 3

°'- 1 11-'4'

lo

IV

()

.-4

cta dS 41.4...t-S.'tif471.;1,- t2. /0

0, ,11ii 0, 4; 4- 4r I 1IF 4*- 011;;5-t'd," 03_, 0 i 01-0.", i

, 1 ^ t n n 0, 4 St t-AT-0 -0-1--0--t -1-0--0--0- --<;-'it -es.

1 0 1 0 P. " 1# 1 S 1 S A 4 10_

c0 1, 11

1 $ I 16

3 3we-, (A0

ei- ; la i.-Do -0 -- -- -- --

ft _0 t 14

ii/ t10- 1,1 °I:I-S-0,- &lid-0 P Vfia t ii_ OP t "_, _4 0

-o -t--.

1.1 -#0e

DISTRICT0 of

STUDENTS

TESTED

17 SCORESREPRESENTTHEPERCENTOFSTUDENTSMASTERINGEACHOBJECTIVE

HARTFORD

HARTLAND

HEBRON

KENT-

KILLINGLY

LEBANON

LEOTARD

LISBON

LITCHFIELD

MADISON

MANCHESTER

MANSFIELD

MARLBOROUGH

MERIDEN

NIODLETONN

MILFORD

MONROE

MONTVILLE

NAUGATUCK

MEN BRITAIN

NEN CANAAN:-__

NEN FAIRFIELD

NEN 'HUMID

NEN_HAVEN

NEWINGTON

NEN L O N D O N

NEN MILFORD

NERD.'

1,585

114

102

_32

179

.54

202

42

74

171

403

89

77

506

302

430

204

175

287

463

184

184

_ _66

1,075

245

211

289

249

1

6

5

6

6

6

4

4

5

6

5

5

3

3

9

4

2

3

2

4

5

1

2

3

5

5

6:4

9

9.

01

9 ;

9

1

9

9'

86

8'6

9.

_ ;

9

91

8

9:

9

94

7

9

1

9 "

9.8

6

81

8

6

7

81

7.

7

8

7

8;

71

8

8.

7.

6

6

8

8'

7

4'

8

5.

7.

4;_9

86101

8-

9

8'

7"

91

7'

84

7:'

7.

7.

9

7

8'

81

0!

7;

7d

74

8

8;

6

8

71

81

8'

9;

9

9.

9'

9:

9

9

9

9'

9

9

9;

9'

91

9

9

9

9:.

9

91

01

9

9

9:

1

2

3/

4

31

3'

4'

41

3:

3'

46

4

54

2:

31

43

4

41.

2'

2,

4;

4

3'

1

4'

1.

3;

4'

5'

9

7.

8

84

::

7'

51

8'

7.

7

6

8

71

7

7

8

64

5'

6'

8

1'

8

61

7:

61

7

7:'

4_

5

5

6

4

3

6

5

6

5

4

6

5

54

4

6

6

6

5

5

6

5-

4

4

6

44

61

6

.

1

9

0,

9

10

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

8

9

9

9

9

9

9(

9

9

9

9

9

9

7'.

01

9

01

8'

9

8

9'

8,

9

7

94

9.

91

8'

8'

9

9'

94

8'

94

91

91

81

9

8.

91

11

21

31

56

3

2

51

5

54

3'

21

2

3

2

24

2:

2;

31

14

I'

61

3;

3'

l'

3

1

31

3

6

71

8

Of

84

7d

8.

7.

8

9

6;

81

8

71

74

84

74

8

7.

7.

8

71

6;

8'

7

8

8'

5'

9!

8

91

81

8

8'

8

8'

8'

8;

81

91

81

7'

;

8;

8

7;

7.

9'

8'

71

64

9

71

8.

91

6.

8.

91

9

8'

9

9

8'

9:

9

8'

9,

8

8

9

9

91

8.

8'

9.

9!

;;

7

9.

7'

9

4.

8.

8

9

8'

74

;1

8

8

81

81

9.

7

74

8,

8;

7'

7-

6

91

8.

8

5

8'

6.

8:

8;

3;

7'

6..9

6.

5

5'

6

51

61

5.

6

61

7

4;

51

6

6"

4'

5

5

7'

61

6'

4

6'

3;

64

6'

0

01

8

96

9

9

8

9

9

8

9

8

8

_

9

9

9

8

9

9

91

8

9

8

9

9

5

01

94

9

8'

81

9

8

84

;;

81

7

;;

81

74

8.

94

84

54

;

91

91

8.

6;

8

71

92

8:

4

8.

8

9

6'

81

8'

6

81

81

7

7'

8,

71

6.

1.

8

6:

6;

6'

84

7:

81

5'

7.

61

8

84

4,

7

91

8'

8E

e9

7

81

87.81

81-

71

7!!

8

11

4ni

73

8E1

80

PP-:8q

605

8t18

8

51

7

8

8

Bi

81

8

8.

7

8.

81

8

7

7.

7

81

81

7

6.

9"

7.

8:

6

81

8

44

7'

7

71

71

81

7'

7

8

7'

6.

1999'6

64

7'

8

7:

6

6'

8;

7

6

4.

7;

61

8

7'

6

01

91

96

91

91

8:

9.

8;

91

8.

8:

91

94

8'

8

7'

9'

;;

8'

7

8.

71

91

91

8

01101

8

91101

8

8

91

93101

9.

91

8

91

,

9

9.

94

8'

91

9

91

9

9

92101

8:

93

8;

9

9

9

9

9;

9.

9

9.

9

9'

9.

9.

9:.

91

9..

9.

I:

9'

9;

9'

9

94

9

9:

9'

14.6

20.5

205

22.2

193

19,4

20.9

19.8

20,3

20,8

19,4

19,3

21,5

10.5

18,4

20,2

20;8

196

18;6

18,0

22.0

20,4

19,8

16,1

20.7

16.8

20.6

21.0

53

14

12

3

17

20

9

19

14

20

22

26

27

12

_9

17

22

28

11

15

44

11

36

10

11

ill915 Connecticut Stall Buid ol EdutsIIon All tIghts reirvol. POMO In blot! SI*, of Moho

97



GRADE AMATHEMATICS

DATE TESTED: lo-BS

OBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEPTUAL

UNDERSTAIONGS

COMPUTATIONAL 1

SKILLS

PROBLEM

APPUCATIONS

SOLVINGI MEASUREMENT/

GEOMETRY

TOTAL

MATHEMATICS

PAGE

0, i 0- ' I, k k * 0 '0 1 'i- "9 i * ft ''1- 4, -t 1,- -11- -f t r -r

P 171,- ti'i

#4,- 0i -' .

* /1

-' l',4 .

_ t ) 0 r 0 * A

if -'tf,1 0 4 if 0 0 1 -0 -0- -Cr "0

0 0 eMatte/Criteria for each obIecIhn Is

3 of the 4 Ilems correct

Remedlal Slarkard Is 69

#e4- 0 0, o # *

I_*

ol the 100 Ikms correct 41.iusammos ms

-8 OF

DISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVETESTED

NORFOLK- 15 6 II 9' Bil0' 4 8 5 0 101 01 3 i 1 01 7' 1 9 .1 Of B 9 8 9 101 216 -0NORTH BRANFORD 149 9A 6. 91 9' 31 5 4 9910 34 8 7 9 8 8 ., 7 8 7 1 9' 19.1 21NORTH CANAAN 35 6 7 8. 1 7 6 91101 9 21 91 1 8 7 8, - 8 7 6 9 7 9 19.3 11MORN HAVEN 214 2 9 7. 81 0 5 7. 5 9. 9' . 21. 6 .4 9 8. 8% 8. 6 7 8 94 9: 20.0 15NORTH STON1NSTON 57 5 9; 84 .. 4* 2' 6. 5 8 I. 8' 2'. 84 9 8. 1 . 8% . 9 91 8 8 5' 9' 20.4NORNALK 644 3 8 6' 1 9. 2i 6 4 9 . 2; 7 71 7 7' 6' i' 7 8' 4, 18.0 28NORNICH 35r, 3 8' 61 81 9 31. 6 5 9 9' 21 7 7 9 7 818 7 7 8 91 9. 19.2 20OLD SAYBROOK 9; 5 81. 94 9. 4; 7 6 9 94 5; 8 9 8' . 4 . 8. 8 8 8 9; 9' 21.2 11ORANGE 152 2 9; 8' 8' 9' 4 8 7 9 9' 9 5, 9 1 9 9. ; 9 91 8 8 9 1. 9 22.0 5OXFORD 100 5 7. 8 9: 2' 71 4 9 '' 91 1 9 7. : . 7 / 8' 9 19.4 16PLAINFIELD 176 6 9 6! 84 9' 3' 8 5 9' 8 21 81 9 84 8. 7' 6 6 9 9; 19.7 15PLAINVILLE 141 4 7' 8 9 2' 6 4 9 9' 9 2: 6 5 84 . 81 7 8 9 19.5 14PLYMOUTH 124 2 81 9. 3 7 4 9 91 91 1 7 9 7 8' 7' 7 7 8 91 19.0 10POMFRET_ 44 6 8 7 8..01 4 6 5 9 01 9 2 7 8 7' 8 . 8 7 91 9 01 19.9 20PORTLAND 72 5 9' 8 9 9. 6 7 5 9 " 8+ 5. 6 9 1 9 94 9 8 9 9 9' 21.3 :8PRESTON 46 4 9 8' 81 9. 3' $ 5 8 9 9 21 7 8 .1 8 8 1. 7 74 7. 9 9, 19.3 15PUTMAN 102 6 6 7 9 2 1 7 4 8 9' 8 1 6 7 6 A ' 71 6' 7 5 8 8' 9' 17.6 34REDDING 88 5 9: '1 11;; 9' 5 8 5 ! 9 9 2 8 9 ; 9 8 9 91 9; 21.6 6RIDGEFIELD 240 5 9; 8; 8' 9. 4, 0 6_ 9 I' 9. 3' 9 91 9 8 8' 9' 9' 9; 21.5 10ROCKY HILL 123 4 1_; A' 9._ 9 St 1 6_ 9 9: 9. 9 1 ' 1 0 I .. 9 8 8 8 9 9. 22.1 3SALEM 43 5 I. 7% 1 9' 44 7 6 9; 8. . 8 9 IV ' .'. 8 9 8 71 8 .1 9 21.0 12SALISSAY 26 6 101 8' 7 9. 6' 7 61 9 101 9. I' ..10 8 ; 1 1 I 9 4 1 0 8 7 9 9. 9. 21.2SCOTLAND 15 6 . 0 1 9 6 1 1 0 1 21 0 4 7 5 7 7 0 81 1 81 7 7 8 8 81 9 18.7 27'SEYMOUR 149 5 9' 7 84 9' 41 7k 4' 9 9 5. I 7 9 8' 8' 81 7 71 91 9. 19.4 17SHARON _13 I ,01 V 7 IDI 2' 7 6 01 94 1. 1' 6 7 6' 8' 9 7 6 0 92 94 19.5 23SHELTON 298 3 9 81 8' 9 3: 8 61 9 9. 9 2 8 9i 8* * ' 5 81 81 7 91 9 9 20.3 11SHERMAN 19 6 101101 8 101 44 8 10 101101 21 7 9 01 8 9 ' 8' 9' 84 7 8 8'101 21.1 5SIMSBURY 263 4 9: 8' 9 9; 51 81 5 9 9/ 9' 5. 8 9 91 9 9 8 9 9/ 21.7 7

iminEMIMINEAm Comecul Stilt OM et tducetkA All AO round ritInkt kUrAed SIM of Arrolco

98

99

too



GRADE 4MATHEMATICS

DATE TEM 10-85

OBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEPTAJAL__

UNDERSTANDINGS

COMPUTATIONAL

SKRIS

PRODLEMSOLVORY

APPLICATIONS

MEASUREMENT!

GEOMETRY

TOTAL__

MATHEMATICS

PAGE

,

,, 1- $ k 7 i -42 . iy, , 4. ci-

° -110 1. CS , ,- _ 0 t v% 11-1 _ ,,,,i, It_i_ . t , t t 4- .14 1, 1 1 is- If " 1

#i $ # 7/# 1,,.- 0 -4 -4-. -$1_ i-1- 0- Avt

1- 0- i i r 1- -4_'0 -!.E,-_

,-1 3 I "1# "1# c00- A V

. -s -0,.. -.-1_ I) $ 0 1

ftWorm CrlIerIa for each oblecOve It $ 6- 3 r I -4);fr -I -_q

it-,

_I 3 0.WIN _4 gem correct, . _ _ _ , -%Remedial Slandard Is 69

_a,a

4of Om 100 Hems correcl

10FDISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

SOMERS 73 4 95 70 74 99 32 68 60 96100 95 16 84 02 90 82 59 96 91 82 85 90 85 89 97 9. 20,2 7

SOUTHINGTON 416 I 92 82 86 96 32 77 55 93 98 95 23 86 83 97 89 55 96 91 82 87 82 81 92 97 9 20.4 10

SOUTH HMO 226 2 96 83 80 99 42 77 62 97 97 9 28 82 85 94 87 63 94 91 84 89 81 83 92 94 9; 20.7 10

SPRAGUE 19 4 8919631002642 53100100 89 21 79 79 95 79 37 8 8 89 95 74 74 79 74 9 18.8 21

STAFFORD 107 5 95 72 80 99 19 88 49 90 94 98 40 85 91 96 89 64 93 9 76 83 80 67 91 95101 20.5 10

STAMFORD 714 1 85 63 71 94 28 68 49 90 93 81 21 71 74 81 68 50 88 7' 60 70 66 62 80 91 9. 17.8 32

STERLIM 22 6 91 77 77100 36 59 45100 86 86 27 86 73 95 71 64 91 9" 73 82 77 59 9 00101 19.5 23

STONINgTON 154 4 85 71 73 94 45 77 47 88 96 91 32 75 80 80 63 46 05 7 67 71 73 62 04 91 9' 18.4 27

STRATFORD 385 2 94 69 76 97 32 80 50 89 97 89 29 79 79 89 79 54 91 8' 74 78 7 74 92 93 9 19,4 19

SUFFIELD 109 4 96 8 09 98 42 61 54 99 94 89 34 90 91 97 85 70 96 8. 83 85 87 74 90 92 9 20.6 10

THCMASTON 83 4 94 67 77 98 17 75 46 89 95 88 12 73 77 88 73 47 86 7 67 78 75 77 87 81 9 18.4 17

TMOMPSON 78 6 97 75 80 97 38 70 50 91 97 95 11 79 87 07 90 66 92 9 83 83 87 78 91 97101 20.2 9

TOLLANO_L 152 5 98 01 ft 98 42 83 56 92 98 95 22 88 LP: 98 90 6 96 91 87 06 82 80 96 93 9 21;0 18

TORRINGTON 252 3 96 65 BO 98 30 87 52 88 96 89 12 77 79 90 81 6 92 8, 74 0 76 71 91 96 9 19;8 15

TRLNBULL 320 2 _95 81_87_98 42 78 62_93_97_92 SI 86 91_914_89 67_91_8 82_83 8710.92_89,T 21;0 13

MON __6 6 100 83100400 50 67 33100400100 50100 83100400 6710 DI 83100 8310010 00401 22.0 0

VERNON 283 3 98 79 84 99 50 91 55 94 97 91 37 82 86 96 89 68 90 9 83 90 91 78 93 97 9 21.2

VOLLNIONN 20 6 80 75 80 85 40 70 50 95 90 80 10 80 85 65 60 35 85 71 75 55 90 65 85 95 9' 18,0 25

WALLINGFORD 412 3 97 $3 82 98 40 73 55 93 98 94 42 82 90 96 88 61 93 91 80 84 81 03 90 95 9. 20.6 10

WATERBURY 936 1 86 60 59 93 29 76 45 91 91 86 23 69 74 75 61 46 84 7 61 64 59 57 83 92 9. 17.4 34

NATERFORD 150 4 100 69 83 95 41 88 62 95 96 9528 88 80 98 89 65 96 9 88 91 83 70 93 95 9 20,9

HATERTOWN 210 2 96 76 83 97 30 72 61 92 94 07 37 83 88 95 86 62 96 91 78 91 06 76 88 97 9; 20.4

NESTOROOK 43 6 91 81 86 95 53 63 56 88 93 98 23 88 91 98 01 60 98 0 86 79 91 74 9 06 9' 20.4 14

NEST HARTFORD 515 2 93 84 86 97 50 85 62 95 96 91 34 85 89 91 86 50 92 8. 78 85 83 74 90 93 9 20,6 14

HEST HAVEN 417 2 92 71 77 94 31 64 48 94 92 84 20 74 84 92 75 49 89 8 69 76 74 68 8 92 9 18,8 23

HESTON 90 5 98 91 97 98 63 82 72 99 99 91 31 96 96 98 96 68 97 9. 89 92 89 81 90 87 9 22,0 2

WESTPORT 224 3 98 12 14 9/ 59 86 68 94 99 96 59 93 96 98 94 75 99 9* 90 95 93 91 95 90 9' 22.5 3

WETHERSFIELD 169 2 99 83 8 97 44 713 50 96 96 95 22 83 89 97 91 66 95 8. 82 86 82 77 91 91 9. 20,6

16111S Conn/ENO slale Bond al Education All rlahts r tend Milled I. WOW SIN s of Amlas

101



VIADE 4MATHEMATICS

DATE.TESTED: 1045

Mastery Crilerla Tor each ()Nachos Is

1911h44Uerottoged

Remedial Slanderu Is 69

of the 100 Items correct

OBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEFTUAL

UNDERSTANDINGS

COMPUTATIONAL

SKILLS

PROBLEM

APPUCATIONS

SOLVING/ MEASUREMENT/

GEOMETRY

TOTAL

MATHEMATICS

PAGE

0 (0

a

ri0,

_11.

1,__645, __to

0

'0- 10 -r 4 i Ai If-'6 -I, 1 -.6 1- S40

Al 0 ,2 1 IA_60 -(T -4 -4- -IA -1

_l___#-0_, _#:; _p., _°:0.4 _^0d_ "act

0-7 tl-o-- 1 otfr 07

'- -0 -

'-''y

--f}-

\- 'a

A rja (3'

ot i1-

0 $

/op

fta

"A30-

/

DISTRICT STUDENTS

TESTED

TOC SCORE,4 REPRESENT THE P1RCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

NILLIPCTON

HIMWINCHESTER

WINDHAM

WINDSOR

WINDSOR LOCKS

WOLCOTT

WOODBRIDGE

WOODSTOCK

REG SCHOOL DIST 06

REG SCHOOL DIST 10

REG SCHOOL DIST 12

REG SCHOOL DIST 13

REG SCHOOL DIV 14

REG SCHOOL DIST 15

REG SCHOOL DIST 16

REG SCHOOL DIST 17

REG SCHOOL DIST 18

53

in90

219

262

92

147

92

47

50

134

72

109

110

194

133

124

85

5

4

6

6

2

4

ZI778294

6

6

5

6

5

4

4

4

6

6

90

96

96

82

94

93

95

91

98

96

99

97

99

95

93

95

96

77

89

72

70

75

7t-

91

7

8

8

8.

7

8

81

6.

89

8

83

93

82

70

85

78

92

85

8

8

9

76

81

81

80

87

82

98

97

99

94

97

9"

9

.

01

9;

0

9

9.

9

9

9.

9;

55

61

30

27

33

31

29

49

30

5

47

47

40

4

43

22

55

40

89

84

46

59

81

78

65

82

53

92

73

79

66

79

83

71

83

66

47

69

60

45

56

61

4

5

51

5

5

6

5

6

61

5

9;

9.

8

8

8

9,

91

9

8

91

8

9'

8

92

9.

9'9 *

96

91 87

99 94

99 91

89 78

46 92

99 16

96 8

98 9

85 8

98

96 9

9910

96 9

0 9

95 9

96j 91

9 9

0 9

17

44

38

23

24

16

27

41

15

46

29

49

20

31

35

44

44

29

66

94

82

64

84

78

78

92

79

98

75

92

82

91

93

89

82

75

94191

94j

83

75

84

86

83

96

81

82

90

96

03

91

89

899062519004778081193

88

95

97

81

15

93

95

98

94

98

96

96

96

94

96

98

91

79

91

82

68

83

83

83

87

77

00

88

92

86

90

80

87

84

53

69

64

4.

6

5 i

5

7i4'74

64

61

6

7

64

64

5'

96

96

90

84

93

91

94

97

94

96

97

99

95

95

94

9

95

81

89

37

72

86

86

84

97

81

82

90

96

88

94

94

85

94

77

86

73

62

74

80

76

83

87

82

81

83

as

88

79

90

85

85

94

82

75

82

84

87

88

77

86

87

'14

OP

89

88

87

91

79

92

83

64

79

85

77

64

89

90

78

88

76

83

06

8

81

82

76

63

75

77

73

78

77

90

82

83

80

85(

78

76

83

75

92

89

86

80

89

91

90

88

87

92

90

97

88

94

94

84

94

9

89

94

94

86

91

96

88

91

87

92

87

96100

83

95

97

91

9.

84

9.

9

9

9!

9

9

9'

9

9E.

96

99

9e

'9

9

9

20.0

21.9

19.8

17.3

19.9

20,0

19.5

21.3

19.0

01.5

.0.521.8

20.0

21320,9

19.7

21.2

20.2

19

8

16

32

;5

8

14

8

19

6

11

1

12

14

6

13

nimmimeniaim Cannock', Still Boili DI Unseen All Oghlt I wad. POW In United SIM of Amin

1 2 103



GRADE 4MATHEMATICS

DATE TESTED:10-85

Molloy CrlIorIs for etch objeclIvo Is

301114_411erns cone_

RettodIA Sloodal Is 611

of Ilw WO Isms correct

STUDENTS

TESTED

OBJECTIVES TESTED

tONCEPTVAL_

UNDERSTANDINGS

COM PZAIJOKAt

SKILLS

PROBLEM SOLVING/

APPLICATIONS

MEASUREMENT/

GEOME IRV

TOTAL--MATHEMATICS

PAGE 7

# of

-4 A

#-

S

IP

TOC

-IA4,--1-

-_

; --S-

iCI IP C1-45-t-e0

°P

-1)4 ,

$ ,

SCORES REPRESENT

,

-40- '0- 1 i

:"" Is % 5.

/ 0- 'e-f- # -411.1-6;4-ti-.10--tt1 S 4 4 11 A

1-1, # -° -4 4 -f1 .;

# 1_ .

-__ -__ -_

1 *# _/0,_ ";

li 110-

0--.' .-70-1--t c- 1

-4' Al- -It );0-1,) ?- 0

11#

--.%

I-. 5.1

t;1

-' -'','

-°; ' ,-

I --C

IA

%,

1P

wilms mwsommissmImsmoonaTHE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVEDISTRICT

Si582 MirEIPPIP!PIPIPPIPPIIIIIIIPPIPPIPPIPIIIPIIP

ljj1112M611131111MIELEIIIIIII!INIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111111Unlled Slat a ol

a&

81111111rirrierrIIIIIIIIIII

Artistica

11111111111111i;r# ow ishommiiimiliii#EGLISibilLaffibil

9111219111111111

I

9111111111111!

811111111!IfiLMSgilIAIIIMMILIalliM1

9111/111121

711

911

91

TOC I TOTAL

,

19.4

20,7

h-

19

TCC 2-TOTAL _6464

. . 5,05

59215

11.

TOC 5 TOTAL 2°3

19.8

193

12

16TCC 6 TOTAL

STATE TOTAL

@ISO °maul Slits Boyd of Mallon All tIfItts t

2i162

29-,798

lama Wed la

20

1 05

APPENDIX I

State by District Report October 1985Grade Four Language Arts Test Results



GRADE 4LANGUAGE ARTS

ONECTIVES TESTED_ _TOTAL

LANGUAGE

ARTS

DEGREES OF

READING

POWER PRP)

WAITING SAMPLEPACE 1

._ LOCATING_

_INFORMATIGN

LISTENING

COMPREHENSION COMPRE

READING

_ A

/- I S- -- 41./- -- 4- -- -- ic -- eikA- ' 0

0 CPI- 4/ .I i S 61/ . 4 tl °Si ' ,/ ack. .6- 6/ si I. ,.la_ t_ 6 0 , t t r, 1,

2. °' 4 A .

%, i'

_

-T

tP,

tA

DATE TESTED: 1045_ _ _ b

, tk*6

4,

, 1,..

._ MILSTERY.CFNIERIA _ _

11 CORR ECT/j POSSIBLE)I/11 T4 11115 VII &7 043 I112 10/14 nto

0 OF

DISTRICT STUDENTS ICC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

29 4 66 n 90 0 -81 66 72 t2 45 6;1 .4.5 2? 50 44 2* 1 . 3 f35 : LirIlri 1 ,

ANSCNIA 144 5 78 68 85 80 70 54 73 45 47 4=.0 28 32 413 44 2.- ' 1' 21 24 23ASHFORD 43 6 65 49 81 74 84 41 65 47 53 58 37 28 35 4- 3 2221 1 4,4 24AVON 147 4 $3 80 95 95 92 ST 90 80 81 7.1 9 24 67 55 2, SS 1 2 5,3 6BARKHAPOTED _SO 6 90 77 90 90 97 50 80 73 80 7,7 20 20 60 48 21 i 27 10 2 2 6,1 7BERLIN IN 4 92 76 94 95 218 82 84 72 78 7.6 11 20 62 49 1 . 2* 24 23 1 . 5.3 7BETON( _55 4 134 85 91 93 83 72 74 58 66 7.0 25 25 51 47 2* a 5' 57 15 _1 4,8 :7BETHEL__ 214 4 80 71 89 82 84 71 81 63 61 6.8 16 30 54 47 I. I, Z. 20 2 1 ' 41 16FILOCCHELD 180 2 0 65 77 76 69 54 64 50 53 5.8 39 29 31 4 S. a 1 3 ' 18 14 . 47 19BOLTON 45 4 80 73 89 93 91 75 78 69 69 7.3 29 24 47 44 2.. _. 11 2 3111 1 41 168031H_-_ 21 5 15 67 81 81 90 76 62 35 ST 6,4 29 SS Se 4 2'. 11 2 51 10 = 1 3.8 SOBRANFORD__ 196 4 80 64 90 90 82 75 71 60 41 6.8 17 33 49 47 1 = 2! 30 1 1 .' 5.0 10BRIDGEPORT 1478 1 56 54 54 59 41 32 39 21 23 3,8 61 24 15 37 61 I* I, 3 1911 4,1 31BRISTOL_ 524 3 85 68 82 82 74 61 75 56 61 4,4 24 25 51 47 2 ' 11 2.- 24 15 4.9 17BRUFIELD 154 4 88 73 95 92 90 74 82 64 71 74 20 20 41 47 21 ' ' 1* 262121 5. 0BROLYN 82 6 73 59 80 79 72 57 63 48 49 5;8 29 28 43 44 2. 1. 2. 22 18 4,6 23CAKIAN 9 6 89 78 78 67 78 56 67 44 54 6;1 35 33 S3 43 3 1 ' 1' 1 SO 13 2. I 5,0 25CANTERBURY 67 6 84 78 85 91 87 61 73 54 49 4-.6 27 25 48 44 2 ' 5* 32 15 4,1 8CANTCP1 81 4 85 70 94 94 96 86 78 74 70 7.5 15 27 58 49 1" . : 2 26 17 1* 5,2 7CHAPLIN 27 6 59 44 70 67 88 52 62 31 54 5,5 35 57 30 42 3' 2 29 18 1. 4,1 12CHESHIRE 310 2 87 73 89 _94 91 84 80 74 80 7.5 14 27 58 49 1. : 1 19 28 I* 1. 5,0, 6CHESTER :36 6 78 69 97 100 86 86 83 58 72 7.3 14 25 61 50 I 1 1 2. 11 19 1 1 IA 11CLINTON 161 5 79 71 84 86 80 63 81 61 61 6.7 23 29 49 45 2, I. 2 26 11 1. ' 4.7 25COLCHESTER 117 5 83 _68 89 91 86 77 73 56 70 4.9 22 29 49 47 2. ' 2 241 17 L. . 5.2 12CCM* II 6 91 100 82 100 44 91 91 64 82 7.6 0 56 64 57 1 I 1. 2 56 _9 -- _I 4-.6 18COUIDIA 45 5 70 57 91 77 78 62 49 62 41 6,1 36 20 43 43 3. . . I 20 30 2 11 5,1 -1COWL _13 6 92 69 42 100 12 54 92 12 12 7.8 0 23 77 55 1 i 1 _. 15 13 St _I LI SICOVENTRY 112 4 86 64 91 90 80 73 77 57 61 6,8 27 31 42 44 2 ' 11 t II 11 I' 1, 5.2 13

e 1. I

II INS ConscUti hie liti 0 [Wks Al Oil nu*, Nei in Unnei Ms.3

0 Mirka

108107

-CONNECTICUT MASTERY 7E3TING PROGRAM


GRADE 4LANGUAGE-ARTS-

OBJECTIVES TESTED TOTAL

LANGUAGE

A RTS

DEGREES OF

READING

PCMER (DRP)

WRITING SAMPLEPAGE tWRITING

MECHANICS

LOCATING

INFORMATION

LISTENING

COMPREHENSION

READING

COMPREHENSION

0'10/

eIvf 11

%11 ;4-

41/

1El. dir-

31- %0 1-1-1-1 -S- °

' c r

1:511Voi, l1 '0 1DATE TESTED: io-as t.

0

_ 0

00 40000-

#0

MASTERY_CRITERIA _0112 119 11/15 1111 511 0/13 8/12 10114 MO

(0 CORRECT/# POSSIBLE)

5(OF

DISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTER NG EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

84 4 .. . Jt tO 48 8 , 152' 2 2. 10 5,6 1

DANBURY 570 3 25 41 OS 34 : II 30 1 1'. I. -2 5.0 IS

DARIEN 189 2 90 81 92 91 & 76 84 73 76 75 1 25 59 49 16 ' 17 2 2 1 1 13 5;6 8

DEEP RIVER 42 6 88 76 100 90 86 79 06 76 62 74 1 , 29 60 48 12 i , 24 1, 2' 1, 12 57 _2

DERBY 80 S / 56 27 42 37 , 11 33 I 11 1 4 4.1 11

EASTFORD 15 6 60 33 48 7 0 41 2f 17 6.1 7

EAST MAY 37 4 92 89 92 86 89 64 84 76 73 7.6 1 32 57 49 11 22 2. 2 1 5 5.1 14

EAST HADDAM 64 5 90 75 84 90 63 69 71 59 70 6,9 2 38 41 45 21 ' . 28 3' 1 9 5.1 9

EAST HAMPTON 108 5 68 73 83 91 67 70 79 62 60 6.9 2 21 57 47 23 1, 35 2 1 1, 4 4.8 15

EAST HARTFORD 425 2 75 59 83 81 71 55 65 48 53 5,9 3a 27 41 43 32 1" 29 2 1 II 6 4.7 21

EAR HAVEN 772 2 76 64 61 85 77 68 70 51 50 6.2 3 26 43 43 31 1' 29 2 1 3 4.6 22EAST_LY)E 165 4 85 66 92 94 65 77 82 68 69 7,2 U32554915 1922 1* 7 5.3 11EASTON__ 62 4 64 77 92 95 94 64 85 71 76 7.6 1 19 66 49 15 1 24 3 1 11 6.4 3

EASTAINDSOR 66 4 71 74 86 88 71 58 70 64 59 6.4 2 38 38 44 24 . 24 1 21 8 5.1 17ELLIN= 109 4 65 13 88 91 83 59 77 59 59 6.1 2. 23 55 47 22 ' 14 : 1 19 5.7 12ENFIELD 372 3 75 66 67 88 80 65 73 5 56 6.4 232459523 : 25 I. 1. 1 _8 5.2 12ESSEX 45 i 64 67 82 93 93 96 64 60 78 74 1 :7 60 43 13 1 1 22 1 1' 16 5;6 :7FAIRFIELD 377 2 9 j ei 68 80 70 74 7.4 1 29 55 48 16 . 2 2. 1 1, 8 5.1 10FAR1W11101 137 4 21 44 4 15 2 21 L 2, 1 5.3 IIFRANKLIN 28 6 79 64 89 89 66 64 79 64 64 61 1132574911

1 II 18 1 1' 0 4.9 11GLASTONBURY 288 4 85 77 91 90 89 83 85 72 78 7.5 I 19 67 SO 14 17 I 21 t. 17 51 5GRANBY 94 4

' 20 56 4 23 ' 27 2 1 1' 4 5.0 11GREENNICH 344 2 81 10 90 89 62 75 61 68 71 1.0 2 ' 24 53 47 23 19 2 21 1 7 5.2 13GRISMOLD 127 4 76 62 67 87 86 60 72 55 53 64 331364333 1' 24 11 1. 1' 11 5.1 22GROTON 417 3 73 61 79 60 76 54 62 40 45 58 3 28 17 42 SS 1 1 25 1, 1 5 4.5 30GUILFORD 249 4 86 83 90 95 5 81 65 70 73 7,5 1 26 61 49 13 . 22 t I 2 7 5.4 8HAMDEN 353 2 SO 41 43 20 II II 3 1' I. 6 4.9 17HAMPTON 22 S 77 55 77 48 100 55 59 41 45 L8 4 23 32 42 45 1 2 19 2 : 5 4.1 43

I' Ma 4141.4014 hi kri

.

al 14010. All rI0144 row* PrInol in kW M ril Awoke,-milk 1

109 110


CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM GRADE 4LANGUAGE ARTS-

OBJECTIVES TESTED- TOTAL

VNGUAGE

ARTS

DEGREES OF

_ -READING

POWER (ORP1

WRITING SAMPLE PR SwRITINO LOCATING LISTENING

NSION

READING ___

COMPREHENSION

i, A , -/I, ,_. r k4- '0 i ` i 1 "." Ac, , ,,,, , t" , ,,..,,,0 tp'A..144 ,

If- 0 iIto/ -:- .

DATE TESTED: 1045*

-0-,AN

-4o4 -.>

.0'

10it

0

o-ii

.4

I= malminvialmmuMASTERY CRITERIA

CORRECT41 POSSIBLE)1/12 7/1 11115 1/11 1113 I/12J 15'11 MO

.......-DISTRICT

JOE

STUDENTS

TESTED

IOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDEN S MASTER 4 EACH OBJECTIVE

HOMOHAMMNEBO

KEW

KILLINLY

LEMON

CUNARD

LI=LITCHFIELD

KAMMANCHESTER

MANSFIELD

MARLBOROLVH

MERIDEN

MIDDLETORI

MILFORD

WOEIDITVILLE

NALQTV3

NIX BRITAIN

NEN COM_ -HEN FAIRFIELD

NEN IURTFORD

NEN-HAtEN

HEMINGTON

RN IntelNEN NILFOAD

ICKT0111

t581-14

102

32

179

M

202

42

74

171

430

86

77

508

302

431

204

175

255

464

183

154

65

11083

245

211

289

249

1

i5

6

6

6

44

6

5

3

6

5

3

3

5

4

4

2

3

2

4

5

1

2

3

5

5

lf86

86

91

72

80

56

86

80

84

80

70

84

69

74

77

Be

80

67

61

91

M

83

47

87

40

85

55

44

64

72

66

71

48

73

71

50

73

67

67

67

62

63

66

75

67

54

60

81

74

65

47

65

47

79

71

45

93

93

%

75

81

92

79

ez

57

85

85

91

77

78

86

91

86

82

70

93

87

88

60

89

67

89

93

-52

84

94

88

77

80

87

86

el57

85

83

90

75

75

BS

92

83

80

71

95

87

88

58

85

67

33

33

3T$6

81

94

76

85

89

81

85

94

81

87

87

63

67

81

87

80

73

53

88

89

88

45

54

57

86

90

23

79

66

84

58

70

52

67

73

51

66

72

82

47

54

63

77

62

55

35

85

70

46

27

73

41

79

84

32

64

81

81

64

56

78

69

76

13I

71

71

81

60

60

71

77

60

66

43

84

71

77

41

73

45

79

81

17

50

73

66

43

33

46

55

55

it57

64

64

44

43

54

66

47

44

34

77

60

63

22

63

31

62

72

li50

71

63

49

46

70

62

49

72

63

59

73

45

50

50

77

43

44

36

84

64

60

26

64

38

MI

71

t4.17.2

7.35.85.87.2

654,3

7.3

6.6

6.67,2

5,4

5,6

6.4

7.3

4.15.?4.77.8

4.96;83.8VA

4.57.2

7.4

3..

I1

2.41

3'1

2

2

2

1

3

2'

1

L3'4

11

2

2

61

2

5

1.

4 3

6 5 I1 1

5 4 2

2 6141 I i2 4 3 1

6 4 1

2

44 2 1

2

2

2 1

5 1

3 4 3

3 44 is

4 1

4 4 3

3 4 3'2 41 4' 1,'

6 1 1

5 4 2

4 ' 2^ I 3' 6 2

5 4' 21 3 5 1

5 1

6 4

II1

I

I_

1

1

II:

1

2

2

1

I'2iV3

2.'

2'1'2,2'

'I2

31

21

U2'

1

li2.'i

443'

Li2'

1.

3

I3

2.

1

43 21 1722 38 10

25 16 1922 13 6

26 LS 11

16 21 17

43 12 10

16 25 11

24 20 16

' 23 16 11

21 8 11

20 28 13

20 13 8

22 19 :821 14 12

24 8 1720 19 14

22 10 4

15 11 6

21 23 16

21 20 1

17 20 1513 6 2

IS 21 1715 7 4

26 13 11

27 11 21

I

1

I

1

6

1

-

1

1

5.

5.

S.

4,

L5.

4.

5.

5.

4.4.

5.

4.

4.4.

5.

5.4.

4.S.

4.6,

3.

5.

3.

4.5,

1

1,

_

2'

II

1

It

It21

MINIM INC INS COMM Sin WI of Eta* M npic no* NW In CM Milo oI Mirka

111112



GRADE 4LANGUAGE ARTS =

OBJECTIVES TESTED TOTAL--

LANGUAGE

ARTS

DEGREES OF

READING

POWER (PP)

WRITING SAMPLEPAK 4LOCATING

. .LISTENING

-R EADI"

--,1-i4i, -- SA- OA, ti-A,i t (%-i 0-/ ./ '-o-4' -._ I, g, c., oi, 0-

4.

-- -1/ ifh;i-t,

DATE TESTED: 1045

,

,--..- v./If

It,

o

G 1°1 Yt S.

Vg-, .6'11'-6T

a

_a 4,1 sr * -4 00 ..

.-

-_4 ?

4

'4--

_

i-

1A1STERY CRITERIA

Ul CORRECT4 POSSIBLE)WI2 M 1 lill VII 1i13 W12 10/11 7/10

1

1

1

3

2

3

:1

1

3

1

1

,

:

2,1

11

2

:

DISTRICT

.110F

STUDENTS

TESTED

TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT Cf STUDENTS MASTERINC TAM OBJECTIVE

1.16.36.46.67.45,26.16.77.5

4.75.16,6LILI7;4

634,17,7

7.67.57.28.05.56.46.2CA

7,680

0

30 32

29 31

27 27

11 25

47 2731 27

27 22

14 23

U 2936 54

35 28

4 272 27

13 32

17 30

452428404111 23

16214541111 33

I 304 27

33 3324 26

23 23

13 28

_5 21

I0 24

51

39

40

46

65

26

42

51

64

49

30

37

30

45

56

52

66

57

60

61

33

SO

54

54

74

45

49

43

43

44

49

40

43

45

49

45

42

43

4

44

49

45

SO

49

50

55

44

45

46

41

55

50

31

2

2

1

4

3

2

1

2,3

3*

4'2

1

1

1

1

3 ,

2

2 .

1.

1

,

: . I

, ,

1

,

I

'

i

,

,

1 I:

,

1

1

.

7

0

6

0

_8

3

61163

7

3

4

1

0

7

0

4

1

0

3.17

11I1

1

1

2

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2

1

1

2

2

2

1

3

2

1

18

14

9

13

8

-8

13

16

15

1

3

5

13

20

13

19

16

20

7

15

j355117

II

14

17

1.14.75.05,$4.3

' 4.44.1

1 i 5.3

'4;1, 4.8

4.94.5

1 4.1

4.11.3

, 4.45.3

1 5.811 1.?1 5;6

_1 4.7

5.34.5,

: 5.11 5.

ItiFirkNORTH DRAMORD

ttRTH WIWINORTH HAVEN

NoRTH STINIKTOI

NORWALK

WNWOLD SAYDROM

RANGE

OXFORD-

PLAINFIELD

PLAINVILLE

PLYMOUTH

PolFRET

PORTIA

PRESTON

POWREDDING

RIDGEFIELD

ROCKY HILL

W SSALISIHMY

%ELAMsEYHOUR

SHAROK_

SNEL70t1

SNEINI

SINS5UN

5

149

35

214

-57

445

356

190

152

100

176

141

125

44

72

46

102

-41140

123

43

26

_15

149

13

198

19

262

i46

2

5

3

3

5

2

5

i42

i5

4

6

5

5

4

56

4

5

6

3

6

4

53

79

86

78

88

61

74

76

11

74

77

76

73

80

83

76

41

92

BS

88

91

300

73

87

OS

M89

68

73

72

60

65

84

62

42

72

87

75

62

72

44

52

76

65

46

M

78

84

65

81

67

n77

80

68

38

100

87

86

8981

71

84

80

90

85

79

88

85

80

It97

46

96

42

93

95

94

93

89

92

87

100

97

87

84

89

85

95

il84

te93

84

75

82

81

82

100

91

66

94

94

13

91

100

67

U92

87

100

95

so 1

80

04

81

81

65

78

72

81

el47

81

77

84

61

72

61

89

87

86

M

96

47

74

61

81

49

91

51

60

41

68

77

52

60

73

70

69

50

64

50

55

62

61

43

83

77

711

74

85

60

63

31

63

79

89

If46

77

74

82

H65

74

88

79

72

72

68

ift

88

74

54

85

65

86

el05

60

78

05

78

95

88

47

%57

60

65

38

50

61

72

58

44

A47

41

65

63

38

77

76

67

63

73

47

49

38

62

68

80

40

52

49

60

68

46

51

70

69

61

49

49

46

39

65

57

40

80

81

79

81

81

40

56

41

62

68

89

..... plumow wawa ivil mrd to ElaNt All Vis writ NW IR Unlise hos el Parks.

113 114

CONNECTICUT_MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM


GRADE 4

-OBJECTIVES TESTED TOTAL DEGREES_OF

wir ..pr Im...

LANGUAGE

ARTS

RFAING__

POWER (DWI

WRITING SAMPLEPANl'IITING

CI: 1,

LOCATING JiS1ENG.i R_FADINII

mmmilint NOWNIIMIIIII. IL 'd NiMir1LNAM 1.1 A Ithl 1U.11,111.

1

__ . __

10,t

viN_ #, I, % ''';-,; _t ,_04i _.,--+:6,-?-'_

4,_0,_ 4- r # /0r,

_,I, ,- -,f--`c

DATETESTED: 1045t

1.

kg. -1- -" Illl1-_,-' .1-0-

4-'}

4 _A

.

-'v-a _1

0

-.i

MIMI MIMASTERYCRITERIA

(# CORRECT/NIMBLE'.

1-

_I/13 IllgilLI 9/13 WI 10/14 1/10

# OF

DISTRICT STUDENTS SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERINO EACH OBJECTIVE

umimmom.1. ,T.

o i 'SOUTHINTON 416 3- $5 71 94 91 52 61 00 64 64 71 I 3 I 4 1 2 2 1. 5;3 :71

SOUTH KROSOR 227 2 87 BO 90 118 91 71 74 65 67 7;1134 411 1 11, 54 10

SPRAGUE 19 4 60 50 79 89 84 63 68 53 55 6.2 4 1 1 4 4 1 1 4 i 5.1 16

STAFFORD 106 5 75 54 92 88 57 60 65 45 52 6;3 2 3 1 2 1 2 3 .42 3i

STAMFORD 717 1 60 60 66 69 61 52 58 41 45 5.2 4 2 3 4 4' 1, 1 3 1 lf 4.5 26

STERLING :22 6 $2 59 77 $6 60 59 65 59 45 CO 3, 3 31 4 1" 1 , 1 1; 5.3 9

STONINGTON 153 4 44 51 76 60 72 49 56 41 46 5.2 6 2 31 3 4 1 2 ; 4.5 30

STRATFORD 385 2 72 62 $2 79 75 60 64 48 53 6.0 3 2 4 4 1 1 2 , 1 1' 11 5.1 17

SUFFIEL11_ 109 4 55 75 93 92 76 76 76 67 59 5 4 2 3 t 11 4.1 1

THOMASTON 53 4 OD 611 80 04 83 57 63 46 42 6.0 3 3 3 4 3 ZEL1 1 $.2 15

THOMPS114 _80 6 05 51 94 05 70 60 57 60 67 6.0 1, 2 5 31111 4.9 11

TOELOCI___ 142 5 86 72 91 $9 08 75 75 55 70 7.0

_1, 2 5 2 2 1 1 5.1

TORRINGTON 252 3 75 59 01 00 75 50 65 49 53 5.9 3 2 34 3 2 1 I 4.1 10

TRUMBULL 320 2 01 76 87 09 01 75 78 65 73 7.1 1 2 5 4 1 1_ 2 21 1 6.1 6

UNION 6 6 83 $3 100 100 OS $3 83 $3 100 8.0 1 0 5 _ 61 Ii 6.0 15

VERM:N 253 3 89 76 91 90 02 i4 82 65 71 7.2 1 2 5 1 2 21 . $.1 11

VOLURTONN 20 6 70 55 70 60 BO 50 45 40 40 5,1 5 1 2 3 3 5 3 _ _ 1 17 44

NALLINGFORD 412 3 71 77 05 $6 00 72 75 63 65 6.$ 2 2 4 4 2 3 1 I 4.9 13NATERBURY 934 1 51 49 67 63 47 SO 52 26 29 4;2 2 21 3 1; 3 , CO liNATERFORD 150 4 119 01 94 44 $5 70 BS 60 65 7;2 1i25 4 1 3 1 4.0 111

NATERTOIN 210 2 50 81 91 09 24 68 77 60 59 6.1 1- 5 124 1 5.3 1NESIBROOK 43 i 46 74 95 93 79 67 BB 74 74 7.3 I 1 i 4 1 1 1 2 1 1, 5.5 7NEST HARTFORD 515 2 76 61 5 4 84 $4 72 69 62 66 6.7 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 1" 1, 5.5 i

NEST HAVEN 417 2 60 66 01 00 68 SI 63 45 45 57 3- 2 3 4 3 3 1 II 4.5 17

HESTON 90 5 09 87 14 95 96 BB 10 74 $2 0.0 1 1 6 5 1 1 2 21 6.7 3NESPORT 224 3 89 75 93 95 94 41 Of 70 00 7.7 1 2 5 1 1 2 I 1 5.i 7

NETHERSFIELD 161 2 $3 $0 59 90 09 74 75 67 71 '7.2 1 3 2 1 11 1.1 11

NEiimmon INIMPinillin POEM= 111 MEMMINen 4111ICRIA iiiii kiii il Eialik AIdot, row*. KW In UM Moe of ANIIILI

116



GRADE 0LANGUAGE ARTS=,.

OBJECTIVES TESTEDTOTAL-

LANGUAGE

DSGREES-Of

READING_

r#

'6

AJo'

MWRITING PLE

0 6c, -..

*.>

t/A

PAR iWRITING

MECHANICS=ATM

INFORMATIONLISTENING

compREADING

INV ' ` ' =

''1),. 0

Op P fd-'1: 1 4to_l '',- ki t

4- * *I it, ,,,,,%IA!r _ /

0 eI#GATE TESTED: 1045

13

fct,-

.'1,

1)-1

k

A

1,-7p-

't

.N.IAASTIRY CRITERIA

IP CORRECTI POSSIRE10/12 111 11/15 MI 1/13 1/12 10/14 mo

1DISTRICT

IOFSTUDENTS

TESTED

TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS 1AASTER NO EAC OdJECTIVE

MN

!MIEN__HINCHESTER

HIMH1IIS01

NIAOSOR LOIS

WOLCOTT

WOODBRIDGE

N000stock

REG SCHOOL DIST 06

REG SCOWL DIST 10

REG SCOWL DIST 12

REG SCHOOL DIST 13

REG SOKOL DIST 14

REG SCHOOL DIST 15

REG SCOWL DIST 16

REG SCHOOL DIST 17

REG SCROL DIST 18

172

90

217

262

92

147

92

47

50

134

:72

189

110

195

133

124

85

4

6

6

2

4

2

4

$

6

5

6

5

4

4

4

6

6

92

72

53

79

88

77

85

72

86

83

85

79

83

85

74

81

81

76

60

45

71

80

64

76

44

82

64

65

72

71

73

68

83

76

%

78

67

91

89

90

86

87

94

86

92

54

12

91

88

91

92

93

80

70

87

68

84

87

_79

100

81

96

88

92

91

85

93

82

92

81

74

81

84

81

82

93

86

85

06

85

89

87

68

92

84

.

92

70

49

68

64

57

71

80

M

64

85

68

77

79

57

67

78

64

56

53

74

76

17

79

71

90

79

86

76

89

86

77

81

82

.1,

78

40

39

is65

54

67

62

70

68

71

60

68

65

49

68

67

80

58

47

41

63

54

70

68

34

69

85

Si

81

75

59

69

71

7.95.95.0

6,87.0

. 6.37,06.8

1.86.97.5

6.77,4

7,3637,37.1

.

3

2

1

2

1

..

1

11-

32

1

.

.

'.

1

".

'

i2

:1

.

'

i

1.; 1

2

. 3

1

3

3

2

I 2

2

1 1" 2

2

2

1

2

2

1

2

2

2

2

1

1

1

2

1

10

7

7

14

12

12

22

10

_7

18

16

14

19

11

1/6

5

1

1

.

1.1

1,,

:

5.

4.4._

5,

5.4:5.

5,5.

5,Li5i5,

5.5,4.

37

42

11

8

x4

4

6

8

10

14

8

5

13

1.1.11=1.1......imSION Cratacting het hod el Waco. M NO mu* NM In UnlIN Illrn ef Amorkr.

MINIM,

117118

i V. e/11 1

STATE ST DISTRICT REPORT

GRAM 4LANGUAGE ARTS

ORJECTNESIESTEll TOTAL-

LANGUAGE

ARTS

DEGREBS Of

RUMPONP.R PRP)

,

WAKWRITING E PM iWRITING

MECRANICS

=TINGINFORI/AlION

_LISTENING NO

COMPREHENSION COMPRNENSION

t

DATE TESTED:

CinA

I'

t% -- IA

/

,

-_

,,

' °/

\

11 T

,

,

of 43

.

,

i-

_ MASTERY CRITERIA

d CORRECT11 POSSIBLE)9/12 /11 11/16 1/11 1/13 9/12 11/14 1/10

DISTRICT11-OF

STUDENTS

TESTED

TOC SCORES REPRESENT ME PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TOC I TOTAL

TX t Tura

Ell150 a 59 11111111MMII MIPINIPP11911,1111111NFL 13101MinIMIMP1111111111111PIIIPIPPOPPIIPPII

Ilt I TOTAL PIMIIIIIIIMINIMPIIIIMPIPINIIIPPPRIPIPPP.mIlmimam. INLAIMMEMMILMM;e4P11 W11.44111.1.6;MEMAIMilLtiriAlaIMINUILALXI-ligliMi-Gr.:11.1:11111111

EINIIINMMINION 1111111111111MitiltrIPPRIPIRI

. UAL

IOU TOTAL

I .e. MUM 13 I : 1 . . . 1

STATE TOTAL 29 Asz III ii go nil 60 67 51 55 IIIIMENIIIIIIII .11.IIIII Ceraile0 Wil kW II Elm*, Ail 110 mold. PO* In DM Won "(kola

119 120

APPENDIX J

Type of Community Classifications

-93-

121

TYPE_OF COMMUNITY

TOC 1 = LARGE CITY - a town with a population of more than 100,000.

TOC 2 = FRINGE CITY - a town contiguous with a large city, and with apopulation over 10,000.

TOC 3 = MEDIUM CITY - a town with a population between 25,000 and 100,000 andnot a Fringe city.

TOC 4 = SMALL TOWN (Suburban) - a town within an SMSA* with a population ofless than 25,000, not a Fringe City.

TOC 5 = SMALL TOWN (Emerging Suburban) a town with a population_of_less than25,000 included in what was a proposed 1980 SMSA but not included in a1970 SMSA.

TOC 6 = SMALL TOWN (Rural)_- a town not included in an SMSA, with a populationof less than 25,000.

*Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area

-94-

122

APPENDIX K

Student Participation Rates

"f3

124


PRELIMINARY PARIICIPAIION RATES FOR FOURTH GRADERS BY DISIRICT

SCHOOL YEAR 1985-86

DISTRICT 0c1..1

TOTAL

STp.21

101AL

DIFF _..RoM._

ELIGIBLE

t

EXEMP

MATH

RATE

NUM

MANLA

RATE

NUM

LA

READ

RAFE

NUM

RIAD

WRIT

RAFE

_NUM

WRIE

ANDOVER 29 29 0 29 0.0 100,0 29 100.0 2' 96.6 28 89.7 26

ANSONIA 149 150 .1 144 4.0 100,0 144 98.6 114? 99.3 143 98.6 14?

AsmfORO 43 ,43 0 4? 2.3 100,0 43 100.0 43 100.0 43 100.0 4?

AVON 149 149 0 141 1.3 100,0 147 100.0 147 100.0 147 100.0 141

BAHKHAMSTED 31 30 I P9 3,3 100,0 30 100,0 30 100.0 30 100,0 30

BERLIN 131 131 0 1?9 5.8 100.0 136 100,0 134 100,0 133 100.0 136

FITIBANY _55 _55 0 _55 0.0 100.0 _55 94.5 52 96.4 53 98.2 54

HURL 211 218 -1 214 1,8 100,0 214 99.1 212 99.5 213 99.5 211

BLOOMFIELD 181 184 -3 180 2.2 100,0 180 100,0 180 100.0 180 100,0 180

BOLFON 48 48 0 45 6.3 100.0 45 91.8 44 100,0 45 100.0 45

1107RAH 26 21 5 21 0.0 100.0 21 100.0 21 100.0 21 95.2 20

BRAN)0RO 196 199 -3 196 1.5 99.5 195 98.5 193 99.5 195

99NBRIDGEPORT 1496 1491 -1 1284 14.2 91.4 1264 96,9 1244 99.0 1211 1TOoRisIOL 528 5P8 0 5?7 0,2 99,4 524 99.1 5?? 99.4 524 98.3 518

BROOKFIELD 161 164 -3 156 4.9 100.0 156 98.1 153 97.4 152 97,4 15?

BROOKLYN 85 82 3 82 0,0 100,0 82 100.0 82 100.0 82 100.0 82CANAAN 10 10 0 9 10.0 100,0 9 100.0 9 100.0 9 88.9

CANILRBURY 70 10 0 69 1,4 91.1 61 97.1 61 91.1 67 95.7

_8

66

CANTON 83 83 0 81 2.4 100.0 81 100.0 81 100.0 81 100.0 81

CHAPLIN_ 30 30 0 21 10.0 96.3 26 92.6 25 100.0 27 63.0 17

CHESHIRE 305 315 -10 308 2.2 100.0 309 100.0 309 100.0 310 99.7 307

CHESIER 137 137 0 31 0.0 97.3 36 97.3 36 91.3 36 97.3 36

CLINT0N__ 160 164 -4 161 1,8 98.8 159 98.8 159 994 160 98.8 159

COLUIPER 115 119 -4 116 2,5 199.1 115 98.3 114 100.0 116 100,0 116

COLUMN It It 0 11 0.0 100,0 11 100.0 11 100.0 11 100.0 11

COLUMBIA 49 49 0 0 8.2 100,0 45 97.8 44 91.8 44 97.8 44

CORNWALL 15 15 0 15 0,0 1857 13 86.7 13 186,7 13 86.7 13

COVLNIRY 118 118 0 112 5.1 100.0 112 99.1 111 100.0 112 99.1 111

CROMWELL 90 92 -2 84 8.7 100.0 84 100.0 _84 100.0 -84 100.0 -84

DANBURY 598 607 -9 573 5.6 98.8 566 96.9 555 98.4 564 98.1 562

wirm 190 191 -1 189 1.0 99.5 188 97.4 184 97,4 184 98.4 186

rup_RIVER 42 42 0 42 0.0 100.0 42 100.0 4? 100.0 42 100.0 42

DERRY 81 81 0 80 1.2 100.0 80 100.0 80 _91.5 78 _95:0 76

EASIFORD 16 16 0 15 6.3 100.0 15 100.0 15 100.0 15 100.0 15

EAST GRANBY 37 37 0 31 0,0 100.0 31 100.0 31 100.0 37 100.0 37

EAST HADDAM 64 64 0 64 0.0 98.4 63 98.4 63 98.4 63 100.0 64

EAST HAMPTON

FAST HARTEORD

111

436

III

440

ii

-4

109

418

1.8

5.0

98.2

100.0

107

421

96.3

100.0

105

418

_97.2

100.0

106

420 IN 11(:97

CAST HAVEN 183 181 2 171 5.5 100.0 172 100.0 171 100,0 171 100.0 172

EAST LYME 164 165 -1 165 0.D 98,8 163 98.8 163 100.0 165 90.8 163

EASTON 64 64 o 64 0.0 96.9 62 96,9 6? 96.9 62 96.9 62

EAST w1NDSOR 72 12 0 66 8.3 100.0 66 98,5 65 100.0 66 100.0 66

CLLINGTON 112 117 .5 109 6.8 99,1 108 100,0 109 100.0 109 100,0 109

ENIIELD 380 382 -2 312 2.6 100,0 312 99.2 369 99.5 310 99.5 370

ESSEx 45 45 0 45 0.0 100.0 45 100,0 45 100.0 45 100.0 45

FAIRTIELD 415 400 15 366 8.5 100.0 377 100.0 376 100.0 377 100.0 373

TARmINGION 144 147 -3 137 6.8 99.3 136 99,3 136 98.5 135 100,0 131

FRANKLIN 79 79 0 28 3.4 IMO 28 10o.0 A 100,0 28 100.0 28

GIASIONBURY 281 281 0 279 7,8 97.8 2/3 100,0 280 100,0 283 99.6 278

CRANRYl. 96 96 0 -96 0,0 97.9 94 9/.9 -94 9/.9 -94 97.9 94

GRFENWICH 423 425 -2 390 8.2 100.0 391 100.0 391 100.0 392 100.0 390

GR1swoL0 131 140 .9 128 8.6 99.? 171 98.4 126 98.4 126 99.2 127

CR0104 425 423 2 108 1,2 91.1 406 97.1 406 98.6 412 95,9 401

125

CONNECTICOT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM

PRELIMINARY PARTICIPAITON_RATESJORJOURTH GRADERS BY DISTRICT

SCHOOL YEAR 1985-86

DISTRICT OCT 1

TOTAL

SEP 23

TOTAL

DIEF NUM

ELIGIBLE

%

DUOMATH

RATE

__NUM

MATH

:Lk_

RATE

.-

NOM

LA

READ

RAIL

NUM

READ

WRIT

RATE

NUM

WRI1

GUILFORD 249 252 -3 250 0.8 98;4 246 98,4 246 98.4 246 98.4 246HAMDEN: 356 356 0 353 0.8 100.0 353 '91.7 345 99.4 351 99.2 350HAMPTON' -23 23 0 21 0.0 95.7 22 95.7 22 95.7 --22 91.3 21HARTFORD 1733 1815 -82 1619 10.8 _98.6 1564 42.8 1502 15.1 1539 91,1 1475HARTLAND 114 14 0 14 0,0 100.0 14 100.0 _14 100;0 114 100.0 1hHEBRON 102 99 3 99 0,0 100.0 101 100;0 102 100.0 102 100.0 100KENT -34 -14 0 32 5.9 100.0 .32 1180.0 12 100.0 12 100.0 32K1LEINGLY 180 180 0 179 0,6 in0.0 179 100.0 119 100.0 179 99.4 178LEBANON .-54 L59 -5 54 0.5 100.0 .54 f.00.0 ..54 100.0 -54 100.0 ':11LEEWARD 206 206 0 202 1.9 100.0 202 100;0 202 100;0 202 99.5 20LISBON 44 47 -3 43 8.5 91.1 42 _97;7 42 _97.7 42 97.7 11;=LITCHFIELD -70 -74 -4 14 0.0 .98.6 J3 100.0 _74 100.0 _74 -98.6 13MAD1SON 172 175 -3 171 2.1 10.0 171 99.4 170 99.4 170 100.0MANCHESTER 421 431 -10 431 0.0 98.8 426 99.1 421 18.8 426 98.8 sY6MANS1IELD._ 90 ' 90 0 86 4.4 100.0 89 100.0 86 100:0 86 97,7 84MARLBOROUGH _77 =77 0 77 0.0 100,0 11 98.1 J.6 100.0 11 98:7 -7r,MERIDEN 550 553 -3 513 7,2 98.4 505 91.9 502 98;8 507 98.2 504MIDDLETOWN 306 304 2 304 0.0 99.1 302 99.0 301 98.4 299 98.0 298MILFORD 4 32 431 1 431 0.0 98.1 423 10.4 424 98:8 426 _991 427MONROE 205 205 0 203 1,0 100.0 204 100.0 203 100.0 203, 100;0 203MONTVILLE 1/4 175 -I 175 0.0 100.0 175 98.9 113 99.4 114 99.4 174NAUGATUCK 315 318 r3 281 9.7 100.0 287 99.1 286 99.3 285 99,3 285NEW 81111A1N 494 514 -20 465 9,5 98.9 460 97.2 452 98.7 459 96;3 (I48NEW CANAAN 189 189 0 186 1.6 97.3 181 94,6 176 91.8 182 96:2 179NEW rAltulrill 103 190 -7 185 2.6 99.5 184 )9.5 184 99.5 184 99:5 184RN HARTIORD 66 . 66 :0 _166 0,0 98.5 65 98.5 90.5 _65 98.5 _=65Nrw HAVEN 1197 1177 20 1080 8,2 96.7 1044 95.6

_65

1032 98.0 1058 964 1041NENINGION 249 241 2 245 0.8 99.6 244 100.0 245 100.0 245 99.6 24hN1N LONDON 233 211 2 216 6.5 _97.2 210 94.0 203 96.8 209 94.4 204Nrw MILFORD 298 306 -8 288 5.9 100.0 289 99.7 281 100.0 209 98.6 284NEWTOWN 257 257 0 251 2.3 :98,4 247 98.8 248 98.4 247 .98.8 248NORFOLK 16 15 i .14 67 100;0 _15 100.0 15 100.0 15 100.0 15NORTH BRANFORD 149 149 0 149 0.0 100.0 149 100.0 149 100.0 149 99.3 148NORTH CANAAN37 .37 _.0 .36 2:7 97;2 _35 97.2 35 97.2 97.2 _35NOR1H HAVFN 219 231 -12 214 7;4 _995 213 -98.6 211 99.1

_15

212 99.1 212NORIM.SIONINGTON 55 59 -4 _56 5.1 1000 156 100,0 -57 100.0 57 98.2 55NORWALK 660 660. 0 641 2.9 994 637 99.5 638 99.7 639 99.5 638NORWICK 368 385 -17 351 7.3 .98.9 353 99.4 355 99.4 355 98.3 351OIDISAVBROOK 90 93 -3 90 3.2 100.0 :90 _98.9 =89 98.9 89 80ORANGE 15? 149 3 149 0.0 993 148 100.0 151 100.0 151

_97.0

100.0 1490XFORfl_ 99 101 -2 10 0.0 99.0 101 99A 100 99.0 100 99.0 108!1AINFIELD 176 188 -I? 110 5.1 98.9 116 _983 1/5 198.9 176 98.9 176PLAINVILLE 142 141 1 141 0.0 99.3 140 100:0 141 100,0 141 99.3 140PLYMOUTH 120 127 -7 11 0.0 96.? 123 961 122 97.6 124 96.9 123POMFRET_ 45 45 0 45 0.0 91.8 44 978 44 197.8 44 91.8 44PORTLAND 11 81 -4 7? 11,1 100.0 12 100;0 12 100,0 72 100,0 72PRESTON 46 46 0 0.0 100.0 .46 100;0 _46 100.0 =46 100.0 46MTH*: 107 101 0

.46

102 4.7 *i00.0 102 990 101 100,0 102 98.0 100KONG -96 91 =1 89 8.2 98.9 88 989 18 113 Ai 100,0 toRINFITTIO 240 244 -4 240 1.6 .99.6 219 .99.2 218 100;0 240 100.0 240POCKY 11111 121 121 0 1?3 3.1 100.0 IN 100.0 123 11111:0 123 100,0 123sAIIM 43 43 0 h3 100.0 43 100.0 43 100;0 43 100,0 113SAIISBURY 31 31 0 26

.0,0

16.1 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0 26 100.0 76

126127

CoNNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM_

PRELIMINARY PARTICIPATIoN RATES FoR FouRTH GRADERS BY DISTRICT

ScHoOL YEAR 1985-86

3

DISTRiCT Oct 1

ToTAL

SFP 23

TOTAL

DIFF NOM

ELIGIBLE DUMP

MATH

RATE

__NUM

MAT4

_LA_

RATE

NUM

IA

READ

RATE

_NUM

READ

WRIT

RATE

_NUM

WRIT

sCO'IAND 16 15 1 15 0.0 100,0 i5 100.1) 15 100.0 _15 100,0 15

SiYOR 149 149 0 149 0,0 100,0 149 100,0 149 160,0 149 98.7 147

SHARON 14 140. 1t3 7,1 100.0 13 100.0 13 100.0 100,0 13

SHEL1ON 301 306 -5 291 4.9 100,0 291 100.0 297 100,0 297 100,0 296

SHIRMAN 19 _19 0 19 0,0 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 19 100,0 19

SIMSBURY 263 262 1 262 0.0 99.6 261 99.2 760 98.9 259 100.0 262

SOM(RS 69 13 4 73 0.0 91.3 71 100.0 13 100.0 _13 100.0 73

SOUTHINGTON 431 430 1 411 3,0 199,3 414 99,0 413 99.5 415 99.0 413

SOUTH WINDSOR 226 726 0 224 0,9 IRO 226 100,0 224 100.0 226 100,0 226

SPRAGUE PO 120 0 19 5.0 100,0 19 100.0 19 100.0 19 100.0 19

STAMM 111 116 -5 106 8,6 100,0 10/ 99.1 105 100.0 106 99.1 105

STAMFORD 750 74/ 3 718 3,9 98,5 701 97.9 703 99.2 712 99.2 712

STIRL1NGI- _22 _22 0 It 4.5 100.0 22 I00.0 22 100.0 .22 100.0 22

SIONINGION 152 154 -2 157 1,3 100.0 153 100.0 152 MA 152 08.7 150

STRATFORD 390 318 2 385 0,8 99.5 383 99.5 383 99,2 302 99,0 381

SUFFIELD± III 111 0 111 0.0 98.2 109 98.2 109 98.2 109 91.3 108

THOMASTON 83 83 0 83 0.0 100.0 83 100.0 83 100.0 03 97.6 81

THOMPSON _88 88 0 19 10.2 94.9 75 93,7 74 92.4 73 100.0 79

TOLLAND" 142 142 0 142 0,0 100,0 147 99.3 141 100.0 142 98.6 140

TORRINGTON 263 263 0 254 3.4 98,4 250 98.4 250 98,8 251 99.2 252

TRUMBULL 371 322 -1 371 0.3 99.7 320 99.4 319 99.4 319 99,7 320

6 6 0 _6 0.0 100,0 6 100,0 6 100.0 6 100.0 6

VERNON 284 285 -1 783 0.7 98,6 219 96.8 274 98.9 280 98 6 279

VOLUNTOWN 20 70 0 20 0.0 100,0 20 100.0 20 100,0 20 90,0 18

WALLINGFORD 417 416 1 41? 1.0 99,8 411 99,0 408 99.0 408 98,8 407

WATERBURY 913 1042 '69 947 9.1 97.1 920 96.8 917 97.5 923 96.8 917

WAIERFOR0 158 158 150 5,1 100.0 150 99.3 149 100,0 150 100,0 150

WAIERINN 215 224

_0

-9 211 3,1 11111,U 217 100,0 218 99.5 216 100,0 211

WEST0R001( 41 41 0 43 8.5 100.0 43 100,0 43 MA -43 100,0 -43

WEST HARTFORD 525 535 -10 514 3,9 100,0 515 100,0 514 100.0 515 99.8 513

wEST HAVEN 455 454 1 411 8,1 99,5 415 99.3 414 99.8 416 99.0 413

WESTON 92 97 0 90 2.2 98,9 -89 -98.9 -89 100,0 100,0 _90

WESTPORT 228 236 -8 224 5,1 100.0 224 100,0 224 99,1 222 99,1 222

WEIHERSEIELD 170 1/2 -2 112 0,0 98,3 169 97.1 167 98.3 169 _91.7 168

WILLINGTON 51 57 0 54 5.3 98,1 53 96:3 52 98.1 100,0 54

W1ETON 1/3 113 0 1/2 0,6 99.4 171 91.1 168 97;1 167 100,0 172

WINCHESTER 94 94 0 90 4,3 98.9 _BR 97.8 _88 100,0 100,0 1190

WINDHAM 232 232 0 221 4.7 95.9 212 95.5 211 95.9 212 94.6 209

WINDSOR 212 272 n 265 2,6 98.5 261 90,1 260 98.5 261 98,5 261

wINOsOR LOCKS 92 92 0 82 10,9 100.0 92 100.0 92 100.0 _92 100,0 92

wOLCOTT 152 155 -3 155 0.0 94.8 147 94.2 146 94.8 147 94.8 14/

WOODBRIDGE 93 93 0 93 0.0 _96,8 90 91.8 91 97.8 91 97.8 91

WOODSTOCK 48 41 1 4/ _0.0 100.0 41 95.7 45 100.0 47 97.9 46

RTGiONAL DIST 6 58 59 -1 51 13.6 98.0 50 98.0 50 98.0 _50 98.0 50

RIGIONAL DIST 10 138 138 0 134 2;9 100,0 134 .98.5 132 99.3 133 97.0 130

RiGIONAL DIST

RIGI0NAL 0I51

12

13

172

112

112

112

0

0

_72

109

0,0

.2.7

100,0

100.0

12

109

100.0

100.0

72

109

ImoNM

_72

109

98.6

100.0

71

109

REGIONAL DIST 14 122 122 0 109 10.7 100,0 109, 100.0 109 100.0 ing 100.0 110

REGIONAL DIST 15 196 207 -6 202 0,0 96,0 194 96,0 194 96.5 195 96.0 194

RIGIONAI OIST 16 134 134 0 133 0,7 100,0 133 100.0 133 100.0 133 100.0 113

RIGIONAL DIST 11 125 110 -5 125 3.8 99.2 124 99.2 124 98.4 123 99,2 124

Hici0NAL 0151 18 88 88 n 84 4.5 100.0 85 INA 85 1n0.0 85 1(11) 0 85

129

Connecticut StateDepartment of Education

Program and Support ServicesLorraine M. AronsonDeputy Commissioner

Office of Research and Evaluation;Pascal D. Forgione, Jr.; Chief

Douglas A; RindoneEducation Consultant

Peter BehuniakEducation Consultant

William Conger°Education Service Specialist

DiVision of Curriculum andProfessional Development

Betty J; Sternberg; Director

Betsy CarterSteven Leinwand

Mathematics Consultants

Robert KinderMary Weinland

Reading/Language Arts Consultants

Velma A; Adams; Editor

130

Download - DOCUMENT RESUME - ERIC · DOCUMENT RESUME. ED 281 886 TM 870 ... (BAB) ***** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made ... 11 F. Mannix J1P-ke S. Rankin HOtaborto

Top Related