1 / 41

Connecticut Mastery Test Scores 2007 Briefing for Superintendents July 27, 2007

Connecticut Mastery Test Scores 2007 Briefing for Superintendents July 27, 2007. Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007 Mathematics. % At/Above Goal. % At/Above Proficiency. Statewide Mathematics Summary for 2007. 59 to 66 percent above goal 80 to 83 percent above proficiency

frasier
Download Presentation

Connecticut Mastery Test Scores 2007 Briefing for Superintendents July 27, 2007

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

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Connecticut Mastery Test Scores 2007 Briefing for Superintendents July 27, 2007

  2. Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007Mathematics % At/Above Goal % At/Above Proficiency

  3. 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

  4. Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007Reading % At/Above Goal % At/Above Proficiency

  5. NAEP Grade 4 Reading

  6. NAEP Grade 8 Reading

  7. 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

  8. Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) 2006/2007Writing % At/Above Goal % At/Above Proficiency

  9. 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

  10. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – GenderGrade 3 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  11. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – GenderGrade 8 % At/Above Goal Grade 8 – 2007 % Below Basic

  12. Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Gender Reading 2005 – Grade 4 Percentage Below Basic

  13. Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Gender Reading 2005 – Grade 8 Percentage Below Basic

  14. 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

  15. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – EthnicityGrade 3 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  16. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – EthnicityGrade 8 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  17. Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Ethnicity Reading 2005 – Grade 4 Percentage Below Basic

  18. Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Ethnicity Reading 2005 – Grade 8 Percentage Below Basic

  19. 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.

  20. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Free Lunch/Non-Free LunchGrade 3 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  21. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Free Lunch/Non-Free LunchGrade 8 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  22. Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Free/Reduced Lunch Reading 2005 – Grade 4 Percentage Below Basic

  23. Performance of NAEP Reporting Groups in Connecticut – Free/Reduced Lunch Reading 2005 – Grade 8 Percentage Below Basic

  24. 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

  25. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Special EducationGrade 3 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  26. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – Special EducationGrade 8 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  27. 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

  28. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – English Language Learners (ELL)Grade 3 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  29. Subgroup Comparisons 2007 – English Language Learners (ELL)Grade 8 % At/Above Goal % Below Basic

  30. 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

  31. CMT Strand Results Strengths and Weaknesses Grades 3 and 8 Reading and Mathematics

  32. Grade 3 – Mathematics

  33. Grade 3 – Mathematics (continued)

  34. Grade 8 – Mathematics

  35. Grade 8 – Mathematics (continued)

  36. Grade 3 – Reading Comprehension

  37. Grade 8 – Reading Comprehension

  38. 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

  39. Reading Components of comprehensive reading programs: • Phonemic awareness • Phonics • Vocabulary – oral language • Fluency • Comprehension

  40. 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. Percentage At/Above Goal Percentage At/Above Proficiency

  41. 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”

More Related