Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published byMelinda Berry Modified over 4 years ago

1
1 2006 Grade 3-8 Mathematics Test Results

2
2 The Bottom Line This is the first year in which students took State tests in Grades 3,4,5,6,7, and 8. With the new individual student data system – announced earlier this month – schools will soon be able to track students throughout the grades and get a comparison of learning from year to year. Teachers will soon get more detailed reports outlining students’ understanding of key math skills. Schools will also see the relative performance of students in any year across the grade levels.

3
3 The Bottom Line Statewide, we can see that the substantial decline in student performance in math between 3 rd and 8 th grade begins after Grade 4, one grade earlier than the decline in English, but from a higher level of achievement.

4
4 The Bottom Line The Math Standards Committee, consisting of math teachers and other experts statewide, recommended new math standards after extensive positive public comment. In 2005, the Board of Regents adopted their recommendations. The result: New York’s math standards were raised in elementary and middle school. The grade 3-8 math tests are based on those higher standards.

5
5 The Bottom Line The new math standards and grade-by-grade core curriculum introduced more advanced content into the lower grades. For example, some algebra and geometry content that had been in grades 5-8 moved to grade 4. Some algebra and geometry content that had been in high school math moved to grade 8. The revised math tests in grades 4 and 8 are more difficult. Therefore, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between 1999-2005 math results in grades 4 and 8 and 2006 math results in grades 4 and 8.

6
6 2006 Mathematics Across Grades 3-8, almost 66 percent of students met all the Mathematics Learning Standards. Students in grades 3 and 4 were more likely to meet the standards than older students. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Number Tested Grade 3 = 201,956 Grade 4 = 202,791 Grade 5 = 209,242 Grade 6 = 209,636 Grade 7 = 217,308 Grade 8 = 219,414

7
7 2006 Comparison of Math and English Results In Grades 3, 4, and 8, students were somewhat more likely to meet the Mathematics standards than the English standards. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

8
8 2006 Mathematics About 11 percent of students statewide scored at Level 1 indicating serious academic problems in math. The percentage of students scoring at Level 1 increased at every grade level except grade 7. Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

9
9 Grade 4 Mathematics Statewide a smaller percentage of students met all the standards on the new 2006 test than on the 2005 and 2004 test. BUT the 2006 test was based on higher standards. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

10
10 Grade 8 Mathematics The percentage of students meeting all the standards on the 2006 test was slightly lower than on the 2005 and 2004 tests. BUT the 2006 test was based on higher standards. The percentage of students scoring at Levels 3 and 4.

11
11 2006 Mathematics Results by Need/Resource Capacity Category

12
12 Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 2006 Mathematics Performance Across All Grades 3 - 8 by Need/Resource Capacity The variations among need/resource categories were substantial. The Big 4 Cities overall showed the lowest average achievement. These variations were greater at grade 8 than grade 3.

13
13 Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1 2006 Mathematics Performance Across All Grades 3 - 8 by Need/Resource Capacity Students in the Big 4 Cities were much more likely to score at Level 1, indicating serious academic problems.

14
14 Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 2006 Mathematics Performance by Grade Level and Need/Resource Capacity In each category, a substantially smaller percentage of students in grade 8 than grade 3 met the standards. The Low Need and Average Districts maintained their sixth-grade performance through grade 8.

15
15 Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1 2006 Mathematics Performance by Grade Level and Need/Resource Capacity In every category, students in grades 3 and 4 were less likely to show serious academic problems than students in higher grades.

16
16 Grade 4 Mathematics In every category, the percentage of students meeting all the standards in 2006 decreased compared with 2005. The decrease was smallest in Low Need Districts and greatest in the Big 4 Cities. But the 2006 test was based on higher standards. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

17
17 Grade 8 Mathematics In Average and Low Need Districts, the percentage of eighth- graders meeting all the standards on the 2005 and 2006 tests was nearly the same; in the other categories, the percentage fell in 2006. The 2006 test was based on higher standards. The percentage of students scoring at Levels 3 and 4.

18
18 2006 Mathematics Results for the Big 5 Cities

19
19 Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 2006 Mathematics Performance Across All Grades 3-8 for Big 5 Cities There were substantial differences in performance among the Big 5. New York City had more students meeting all the standards than any other large city.

20
20 Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1 2006 Mathematics Performance Across All Grades 3-8 for Big 5 Cities About one in three students in Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse showed serious academic problems.

21
21 2006 Mathematics Performance by Grade Level in the Big 5 Cities In every district, 7th- and 8 th -graders were less likely to meet all the standard than students in earlier grades. In New York City and Yonkers, the majority of students in grades 3, 4, and 5 met the standards, as did a majority of sixth-graders in New York City. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

22
22 2006 Mathematics Performance by Grade Level in the Big 5 Cities New York City had the fewest students showing serious academic problems. In Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse, at least one in three students in grades 5-8 scored in Level 1. Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

23
23 Grade 4 Mathematics The percentage of students meeting all the standards on the 2006 test decreased compared with the previous year. But the new test was based on higher standards. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

24
24 Grade 8 Mathematics On the new test, Rochester and Syracuse had about the same percentage of students (about 20 percent) meeting the standards as on the 2005 test. The percentage fell in the other three cities. New York City and Yonkers still performed at a higher level than Buffalo, Rochester, and Syracuse. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

25
25 Review requirements for teacher preparation. Ensure new teachers – especially in elementary and middle school – know how to teach math. Ensure current teachers get adequate professional development on how to teach math. Provide research for evidence-based math resources through the Statewide Mathematics Resource Center. What Must the State Do Now? The Regents are considering new actions:

26
26 These Results Also Show That Funding is a Key Issue Students in Low Need Districts are much more likely than those in the Big 4 Cities to meet all the standards. The State must provide more funds to the neediest children.

27
27 What Must Schools Do Now? Provide more intensive classes for underserved students to ensure they learn mathematics. Use the individual student data, with longitudinal data available next year, along with local performance data to assess instructional programs. Provide the needed professional development to teachers based on that analysis.

28
28 The Bottom Line This is the first year in which students took State tests in Grades 3,4,5,6,7, and 8. With the new individual student data system – announced earlier this month – schools will soon be able to track students throughout the grades and get a comparison of learning from year to year. Teachers will soon get more detailed reports outlining students’ understanding of key math skills. Schools will also see the relative performance of students in any year across the grade levels.

29
29 The Bottom Line Statewide, we can see that the substantial decline in student performance in math between 3 rd and 8 th grade begins after Grade 4, one grade earlier than the decline in English, but from a higher level of achievement.

30
30 The Bottom Line The Math Standards Committee, consisting of math teachers and other experts statewide, recommended new math standards after extensive positive public comment. In 2005, the Board of Regents adopted their recommendations. The result: New York’s math standards were raised in elementary and middle school. The grade 3-8 math tests are based on those higher standards.

31
31 The Bottom Line The new math standards and grade-by-grade core curriculum introduced more advanced content into the lower grades. For example, some algebra and geometry content that had been in grades 5-8 moved to grade 4. Some algebra and geometry content that had been in high school math moved to grade 8. The revised math tests in grades 4 and 8 are more difficult. Therefore, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between 1999-2005 math results in grades 4 and 8 and 2006 math results in grades 4 and 8.

32
32 2006 Grade 3-8 Mathematics Test Results

Similar presentations

© 2019 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

To make this website work, we log user data and share it with processors. To use this website, you must agree to our Privacy Policy, including cookie policy.

Ads by Google