1 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Steve Martin, CMT Program Manager Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Preparing for Cycle III School and District Accountability Ratings and AYP Determinations Information Sessions August 26 & 27, 2004 Juliane Dow, Associate.
Advertisements

No Child Left Behind Act © No Child Left Behind Act ©Kristina Krampe, 2005 EDS 513: Legal Issues in Special Education.
No Child Left Behind Act January 2002 Revision of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) Education is a state and local responsibility Insure.
‘No Child Left Behind’ Loudoun County Public Schools Department of Instruction.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
ESEA FLEXIBILITY WAIVER Overview of Federal Requirements August 2, 2012 Alaska Department of Education & Early Development.
Pershing Pershing Annual Meeting Title I AYP/School Improvement.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Information Session Juliane Dow, Associate Commissioner Accountability & Targeted Assistance Massachusetts Department of.
Data 101 Presented by Janet Downey After School Program Specialist Riverside Unified School District.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Public School Choice The School District Of Palm Beach County May 2011.
STAR (Support through Assistance & Reforms) Report.
Fontana Unified School District Student Achievement Data September 17, 2008 Instructional Services Assessment & Evaluation.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Our Children Are Our Future: No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Accountability and AYP A Archived Information.
Title III Accountability. Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives How well are English Learners achieving academically? How well are English Learners.
Montana’s statewide longitudinal data system Project Montana’s Statewide Longitudinal Data System (SLDS)
Questions & Answers About AYP & PI answered on the video by: Rae Belisle, Dave Meaney Bill Padia & Maria Reyes July 2003.
Springfield Public Schools Adequate Yearly Progress 2010 Overview.
San Leandro Unified School Board Looking Closely About Our Data September 6, 2006 Presented by Department of Curriculum and Instruction Prepared by Daniel.
Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST API and AYP Elementary Presentation Version: Elementary.
Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) and the Connecticut Academic Achievement Test (CAPT) Spring 2011 Presented to the Guilford Board of Education September.
1 Paul Tuss, Ph.D., Program Manager Sacramento Co. Office of Education August 17, 2009 California’s Integrated Accountability System.
Title I School Improvement Committee of Practitioners Bridgeport Conference Center June 9, 2008.
1 No Child Left Behind Critical Research Findings For School Boards Ronald Dietel UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center.
Florida’s Implementation of NCLB John L. Winn Deputy Commissioner Florida Department of Education.
Acquiring English Proficiency in the Torrington Public Schools Programs, Process, and Student Progress Cheryl F. Kloczko.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Accountability Status Determinations.
Ysleta Independent School District 2004 Accountability State and AYP.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
1 Up-date on Assessment in Connecticut Dr. Barbara Q. Beaudin, Associate Commissioner Division of Assessment and Accountability Chief, Bureau of Student.
Ohio’s New Accountability System Ohio’s Response to No Child Left Behind (NCLB) a.k.a. Elementary & Secondary Education Act a.k.a. ESEA January 8, 2002.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 10, 2007.
Jackson County School District A overview of test scores and cumulative data from 2001 – 2006 relative to the following: Mississippi Curriculum Test Writing.
No Child Left Behind Tecumseh Local Schools. No Child Left Behind OR... 4 No Educator Left Unconfused 4 No Lawyer Left Unemployed 4 No Child Left Untested.
Title I and Families. Purpose of Meeting According to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, schools are required to host an Annual Meeting to explain.
Data Overview ~ Writing Achievement October 4, 2010 Presentation to South Middle School Seventh Grade Language Arts and Social Studies Teachers In good.
School Accountability in Delaware for the School Year August 3, 2005.
Lodi Unified School District Accountability Progress Report (APR) Results Update Prepared by the LUSD Assessment, Research & Evaluation Department.
1 Title I Faculty Presentation Department of Federal and State Programs or PX
Appoquinimink School District A Bright Horizon for MHS Corrective Action Plan 3 Year Plan December, 2007.
Santa Ana Unified School District 2011 CST Enter School Name Version: Intermediate.
No Child Left Behind Education Week
No Child Left Behind. HISTORY President Lyndon B. Johnson signs Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 1965 Title I and ESEA coordinated through Improving.
Adequate Yearly Progress The federal law requires all states to establish standards for accountability for all schools and districts in their states. The.
1 No Child Left Behind: Identification of Program Improvement (PI) Schools and Districts July 2003.
Parents as Partners: How Parents and Schools Work Together to Close the Achievement Gap.
ESEA Federal Accountability System Overview 1. Federal Accountability System Adequate Yearly Progress – AYP defined by the Elementary and Secondary Education.
Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) /22/2010.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez January 2010.
School and District Accountability Reports Implementing No Child Left Behind (NCLB) The New York State Education Department March 2004.
AYP and Report Card. Big Picture Objectives – Understand the purpose and role of AYP in Oregon Assessments. – Understand the purpose and role of the Report.
GEORGIA’S CRITERION-REFERENCED COMPETENCY TESTS (CRCT) Questions and Answers for Parents of Georgia Students February 11, 2009 Presented by: MCES.
Presented by: Frank Ciloski, Sherry Hutchins, Barb Light, Val Masuga, Amy Metz, Michelle Ribant, Kevin Richard, Kristina Rider, and Helena Shepard.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez September 1, 2008.
1 Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) U.S. Department of Education Adapted by TEA May 2003 Modified by Dr. Teresa Cortez for Riverside Feeder Data Days February.
NCLB Assessment and Accountability Provisions: Issues for English-language Learners Diane August Center for Applied Linguistics.
Title I Annual Meeting What Every Family Needs to Know!
Connecticut Mastery Test Fourth Generation Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Connecticut Academic Performance Test Third Generation Grade 10 Presented to the.
Granby Public Schools Annual Continuous Progress Review Presented by Diane Dugas Director of Curriculum September CMT Review.
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). What is Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)? As a condition of receiving federal funds under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), all.
School Report Card and Identification Progression
Accountability in California Before and After NCLB
Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
Mark Baxter Texas Education Agency
AYP and Report Card.
Chapter 8 (key issues for Special Education)
EDN Fall 2002.
Presentation transcript:

1 Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Steve Martin, CMT Program Manager Bureau of Research, Evaluation, and Student Assessment Connecticut State Department of Education

2 CMT Background Information: What is the CMT, and why does Connecticut Administer this test?

3 State Legislation Connecticut General Statutes Section 10-14n currently mandates a statewide mastery test to be administered annually in the spring to all public-school students enrolled in grades 3,4, 5, 6, 7 and 8.

4 Federal Legislation (NCLB) Requires all states to test public- school students in these grades (and one high-school grade). One goal of this federal legislation is for all students to perform at the proficient level or above on state administered tests by 2014.

5 History of CMT Subjects Tested YearSubjectsGrade Beginning 1986 (State Initiative) Mathematics, Reading and Writing 4, 6 and 8 Beginning 2006 (as required by NCLB) Mathematics, Reading, and Writing 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 Beginning 2008 (as required by NCLB) Add Science5 and 8

6 The Four Item Types Multiple-Choice –Usually four answer options –DRP gives five answer options Grid-In (mathematics only) 7 x 42 = ? Short-Answer Can including drawing graphs and shapes Extended-Response

7 The Connecticut Mastery Test Mathematics Reading Reading Comprehension Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Writing Direct Assessment of Writing Editing and Revising Science

8 Number of CMT Subtests by Grade in 2007 GradeMathReading Comp DRPE&RDAWSci.TOT

9 Reporting Student Results Five Performance Levels Advanced Goal Proficient Basic Below Basic

10 Reporting Student Results Five Performance Levels Advanced Goal Proficient Basic Below Basic According to NCLB, all students must be scoring at Proficient or above in mathematics and reading by 2014.

11 Current Goal for NCLB Accountability CMT Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) Reading: 68% at/above Proficient Math: 74% at/above Proficient Participation: 95% must participate

12 Consequences of the results for students, schools and districts

13 All schools in Year 1 of school improvement must implement a school improvement plan: If a school or subgroup does not achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the same content area for two consecutive years, the school is identified as “in need of improvement.” This will put the school in Year 1 of school improvement. The law is specific to schools and district who receive federal Title I funding: School Improvement: Year 1 Title I schools in Year 1 of school improvement, in addition to creating a school improvement plan, must also provide the opportunity for all students in the school to transfer to another public school within the district that has not been identified as “in need of improvement.”

14 must continue to implement the Year 1 consequences, but must also begin to offer supplemental educational services. School Improvement: Year 2 School Improvement: Year 3 must continue to implement the Year 1 and Year 2 consequences, but must also take corrective action measures such as instituting a new curriculum or appointing an outside expert to advise the school.

15 must continue corrective action, but must also begin planning for restructuring. School Improvement: Year 4 School Improvement: Year 5 must implement the restructuring plan they developed during the course of the last year. The restructuring plan must reflect major reforms, such as significant changes in staffing, leadership, structure and governance.

16 CMT Resources

17 For a Complete Listing Visit the Department Website Then click: “Student Assessment” Then click: “ Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT)” Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) Then click: “ CMT Resources and Publications” CMT Resources and Publications Or click:“CMT Assessment Data”

18 ASSESSMENT DATA CMTReports.com provides a robust data source for CMT reports. Through this website, you can build reports that are highly customized. For example…

19 This report shows the difference between grade 5 males and females for the whole state on mathematics and reading performance with respect to proficiency scores in Notice that females have better scores than males statewide, not only in reading, but in mathematics as well. Remember that this year’s AYP targets are: Reading: 68% at/above Proficient Math: 74% at/above Proficient This year, statewide, the students are achieving these goals, but fall short of the 100% Goal called for by 2014.

20 These data are for the same statewide group (grade 5, 2007) but show subgroup performance for race/ethnicity, poverty, special education and for English language learners. I have highlighted subgroups that do not hit current AYP targets statewide. AYP= 68% AYP = 74%

21 Questions?