Post on 14-Dec-2015
transcript
Connecticut Mastery Test Scores 2007
Briefing for Superintendents
July 27, 2007
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007Mathematics%
At/
Ab
ove
Go
al%
At/
Ab
ove
Pro
fic
ien
cy
56 59 5962 61
6659
64
5760 58
61
0102030405060708090
100
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006
2007
79 80 80 81 8183 80
83
78 80 79 81
0102030405060708090
100
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006
2007
Statewide Mathematics Summary for 2007
• 59 to 66 percent above goal
• 80 to 83 percent above proficiency
• 3 to 5 percentage point gain across grades at goal
• 1 to 3 percentage point gain across grades at proficiency
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007Reading
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
% A
t/A
bo
ve P
rofi
cie
ncy
5452
58 57 61 6164 64 67 66 67 67
0102030405060708090
100
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006
2007
69 69 72 71 73 7375 76 76 76 77 76
0102030405060708090
100
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006
2007
NAEP Grade 4 Reading
69 68
76 74 74 71
3438
43 43 4338
611 11 12 13 12
01020304050
60708090
100
Basic Proficient Advanced
1992
1994
1998
2002
2003
2005
NAEP Grade 8 Reading
8176 77
74
4037 37
34
3 4 5 4
0102030405060
708090
100
Basic Proficient Advanced
1998
2002
2003
2005
Statewide Reading Summary for 2007
• 52 to 67 percent above goal
• 69 to 76 percent above proficiency
• 0 to -2 percentage point change from 2006 in percent above goal
• 0 to -1 percentage point change from 2006 in percent above proficiency
• Flat to downward trend, similar to trend on NAEP scores
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007Writing
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
% A
t/A
bo
ve P
rofi
cie
ncy
61 61 6365 65 65 62 63
60 6062 64
0102030405060708090
100
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006
2007
82 82 84 84 85 86 83 8481 81 82 83
0102030405060708090
100
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8
2006
2007
Statewide Writing Summary for 2007
• 60 to 65 percent above goal
• 81 to 86 percent above proficiency
• 0 to 2 percentage point gain across grades at goal
• 0 to 1 percentage point gain across grades at proficiency
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – GenderGrade 3
60 59
5055 53
70
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
Male
Female
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
12
10
23
18
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mathematics Reading Writing
Male
Female
% B
elo
w B
asic
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – GenderGrade 8
6160
64
69
57
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
Male
Female
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
Grade 8 – 2007
10
8
18
14
10
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Mathematics Reading Writing
Male
Female
% B
elo
w B
asic
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – GenderReading 2005 – Grade 4Percentage Below Basic
33
25
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
MaleFemale
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – GenderReading 2005 – Grade 8Percentage Below Basic
30
21
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
MaleFemale
Subgroup Analysis – Gender
Grades 3 and 8 Comparisons
• Little to no gap in mathematics scores at goal level
• 2 percent more males at below basic level
• 5 percentage point gap in reading scores at goal level; females scoring higher – same trend in NAEP reading scores
• 4 to 5 percent more males below basic
• 14 and 17 percentage point gap in writing scores; females scoring higher
• 6 percent more males below basic
• Gap persists in narrative, expository and persuasive writing
• Same writing trend in NAEP, CAPT and SAT scores
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – EthnicityGrade 3
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
5
24 23
11
3942
4
1516
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mathematics Reading Writing
White
Black
Hispanic
% B
elo
w B
asic
71
3134
65
2423
70
38 38
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
White
Black
Hispanic
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – EthnicityGrade 8
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
73
2830
78
38 37
75
3635
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
White
Black
Hispanic
4
2223
8
33
38
3
14
18
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mathematics Reading Writing
White
Black
Hispanic
% B
elo
w B
asic
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – EthnicityReading 2005 – Grade 4Percentage Below Basic
19
5855
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
WhiteBlackHispanic
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – EthnicityReading 2005 – Grade 8Percentage Below Basic
17
5046
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
WhiteBlackHispanic
Subgroup Analysis – Ethnicity
Grades 3 and 8 Comparisons
• Persistent gaps between white and Hispanic and white and black; same trend as NAEP, CAPT and SAT
• Black and Hispanic scores not substantially different
• Mathematics – 37 and 45 percentage point gap at goal; gap in goal scores is wider at the higher grade
•4 to 5 times as many black and Hispanic students below basic compared to white students
• Reading – average gap of 41 percentage points across grades
•4 to 5 times as many black and Hispanic students below basic compared to white students
• Writing – 32 to 40 percentage point gap across the grades; gap is wider at the higher grade
•4 to 5 times as many black and Hispanic students below basic compared to white students; in Grade 8, six times as many Hispanic students scoring below
basic.
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Free Lunch/Non-Free LunchGrade 3
34
71
23
65
38
71
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
Free
Non-Free
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
23
5
41
11
15
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mathematics Reading Writing
Free
Non-Free
% B
elo
w B
asic
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Free Lunch/Non-Free LunchGrade 8
30
72
38
77
36
75
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
Free
Non-Free
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
21
5
35
9
16
4
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Mathematics Reading Writing
Free
Non-Free
% B
elo
w B
asic
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Free/Reduced LunchReading 2005 – Grade 4Percentage Below Basic
55
19
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
FreeNon-Free
Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Free/Reduced LunchReading 2005 – Grade 8Percentage Below Basic
47
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
FreeNon-Free
Subgroup Analysis – Free Lunch/Non-Free Lunch
Grades 3 and 8 Comparisons
•Mathematics – 37 to 42 percentage point gap
•Reading – 39 to 42 percentage point gap
•Writing – 33 to 39 percentage point gap
•Four times as many poor students score below basic compared to non-poor students
•Gap in below basic is the same on NAEP assessment
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Special EducationGrade 3
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
38
8
60
16
34
4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mathematics Reading Writing
Special Ed.
Non Special Ed.
% B
elo
w B
asic
24
64
15
57
21
65
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mathematics Reading Writing
Special Ed.
Non Special Ed.
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Special EducationGrade 8
20
66
23
72
21
69
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
Special Ed.
Non Special Ed.
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
41
5
55
11
34
4
05
101520253035404550556065
Mathematics Reading Writing
Special Ed.
Non Special Ed.
% B
elo
w B
asic
Subgroup Analysis
Special Education/Non-Special Education
•40 and 46 percentage point average gap in mathematics at goal level
•42 and 49 percentage point gap in reading at goal level
•44 and 48 percentage point gap in writing at goal level
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – English Language Learners (ELL)Grade 3
26
61
10
55
27
63
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
ELL
Non-ELL
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
30
10
58
18
22
7
05
101520253035404550556065
Mathematics Reading Writing
ELL
Non-ELL
% B
elo
w B
asic
Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – English Language Learners (ELL)Grade 8
13
62
9
69
13
66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Mathematics Reading Writing
ELL
Non-ELL
% A
t/A
bo
ve G
oal
39
8
69
14
37
6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Mathematics Reading Writing
ELL
Non-ELL
% B
elo
w B
asic
Subgroup Analysis
English Language Learners/Non-English Language Learners
•35 and 49 percentage point gap in mathematics at goal level
•45 and 60 percentage point gap in reading at goal level
•36 and 53 percentage point gap in writing at goal level
CMT Strand Results
Strengths and Weaknesses
Grades 3 and 8
Reading and Mathematics
Grade 3 – Mathematics
Strengths Percentage of Students Mastering Strand
1.) Pictorial Representation of Numbers
Example: Shade in 5/6 of this figure
97%
2.) Basic Facts
Example: 2 x 8
91%
3.) Computation with Whole Numbers and Decimals
Example: 58
+25
93%
4.) Geometric Shapes and Properties
Example: Draw a closed shape that has exactly four sides.
96%
Grade 3 – Mathematics (continued)
Weaknesses Percentage of Students Mastering Strand
1.) Estimating Solutions to Problems
Example: Mrs. Parker bought food for $18. She gave the
cashier $50. About how much change did the
cashier give Mrs. Parker?
58%
2.) Approximating Measures
Example: About how many units long is the pencil?
61%
3.) Mathematical Applications
Example: Geno’s mother has five kinds of shoes in her closet:
There are:
- sneakers, flip flops, boots, dress shoes and clogs
- 18 pairs of shoes in all
- twice as many pairs of flip flops as pairs of boots
- three pairs of sneakers
- two more pairs of clogs than pairs of boots
Use the information above to show how many pairs of each kind of shoe Geno’s mother could have in her closet. Then show another way his mother could have pairs of each kind of shoe in her closet.
39%
Grade 8 – Mathematics
Strengths Percentage of Students Mastering Objective
1.) Tables, Graphs and Charts Example: The table shows the number of years ago several kinds of clothing were first worn.
82%
2.) Order, Magnitude and Rounding of Numbers Example: On the ruler, mark an X at the point where 5.9 cm would be.
75%
3.) Models for Operations Example: A farmer had 15.9 pounds of feed to give to her cows. She had 4 feeding bins she used to feed the cows. If she separated the feed evenly into 4 bins, which number sentence could be used to determine the count of each bin?
76%
Kind Number of Years Ago
Belts & Trousers 30,000
Knitted Skirts 20,000
Cotton 6,500
Silk 5,000
Buttoned Garments 13,000
Grade 8 – Mathematics (continued)
Weaknesses Percentage of Students Mastering
Objective
1.) Computation with Whole Numbers and Decimals Example: 5,006.2 – 2,904.88 =
48%
2.) Estimating Solutions to Problems Example: A stadium can hold 108,400 people. It was about ¾ full of people for the last football game of the season. What is a good estimate of the number of people who attended the last game? Explain how you made your estimate.
42%
3.) Mathematical Applications Example: The Bushnell Park Carousel in Hartford opens in May and runs through October from 11 A.M. to 5 P.M. One cycle of the carousel consists of 3 stages: loading people, the actual ride, and unloading people. It takes about 8 minutes to complete one cycle. The actual date on the carousel takes 3 ½ minutes. If the carousel rotates 4 times per minute, how many rotations could it make from 11 A.M. to 5 P.M.?
31%
Grade 3 – Reading Comprehension
Percentage of Students Mastering Objective
1.) Forming a General Understanding
Example: This story is mainly about…
69%
2.) Developing Interpretation
Example: What does this story tell the reader about how
people and animals work together?
Use details from the story to explain your answer.
79%
3.) Making Reader/Text Connections
Example: Think about a fishing trip that you have heard about,
seen on TV, or been on. Write a brief paragraph
telling how that fishing trip was different from the
one in this story. Use information from the story to
explain your answer.
33%
4.) Examining the Content and Structure
If the author had added another sentence to paragraph 15,
which of these would best belong?
39%
Grade 8 – Reading Comprehension
Percentage of Students Mastering Objective
1.) Forming a General Understanding Example: According to the article, what is an important quality that a pet-sitter should have? Explain why this quality is important. Use information from the article to support your answer.
57%
2.) Developing Interpretation Example: In paragraph 1, the author probably included the statement, “pets need companionship as much as people do,” in order to…?
61%
3.) Making Reader/Text Connections Example: After reading the article, explain why you would or would not like to be a pet-sitter. Use information from the article to support your answer.
54%
4.) Examining the Content and Structure Example: The tone of this article can best be described as…
68%
Reading What do we need to improve?
Characteristics of schools which demonstrated the most improvement in reading over a five-year period 2000-2004
• Curriculum with clearly articulated expectations at each grade level
• Consistency of a program that is structured and contains the key components of a comprehensive reading program
• Collaborative meeting time
• Early intervention
• Instructional leadership
90-minute block – time on task
• Reading specialists
• Interventions for students performing below grade level
• Professional development
• Parent involvement
Reading
Components of comprehensive reading programs:
• Phonemic awareness
• Phonics
• Vocabulary – oral language
• Fluency
• Comprehension
Reading Success Story
Conte West Hills school in New Haven, a Reading First school, has embodied the characteristics of an effective school and has a comprehensive reading program.
The 2007 reading growth in this school has been excellent.
32
40
32
35
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Grade 3 Grade 4
20062007
47
71
47
54
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Grade 3 Grade 4
20062007
Per
cent
age
At/A
bove
Goa
lP
erce
ntag
e A
t/Abo
ve P
rofic
ienc
y
To access this PowerPoint presentation, please visit the State Department of Education website at:
http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp
under “Press Room 2007”