1. Fall Testing Update David Abrams Assistant Commissioner for Standards, Assessment, & Reporting Middle Level Liaisons & Support Schools Network November 16, 2006

2. ELA & Math 3-8 Test Uses  Signal Priority Content  Evaluate student progress towards meeting State Learning Standards  Inform Instruction  Determine AIS needs  Accountability System: AYP calculations

3. 3-8 Testing: Vertically Moderated Standards (VMS)  Student progress is measured from grade-to-grade relative to proficiency in meeting the Standards rather than in terms of scale scores on exams.  Measurement experts say this method is more reliable than vertical scaling for monitoring student progress given the test design specified in the NYS RFP.

4. 3-8 Testing: Vertically Moderated Standards (VMS)  VMS exams do not require overlapping items; test forms are “thinner” and testing times are shorter.  Because items on each test are developed only for a single grade-level, it provides better content coverage for each grade.

5. 2006 Grade 3-8 English For the first time, we can see that the decline in student achievement begins after the 5 th grade. This shows the percentage of students meeting all the standards. Schools, teachers, and parents can now see how students performed at each grade. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 Number Tested Grade 3 = 185,603 Grade 4 = 190,951 Grade 5 = 201,262 Grade 6 = 204,249 Grade 7 = 210,735 Grade 8 = 212,320

6. 2006 Grade 3-8 English The percentage of students with serious academic difficulties (Level 1) does not change significantly at each grade. Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

7. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 2006 English Language Arts (ELA) Performance in Grades 3, 4, and 5 by Need/Resource Capacity Category In each N/RC category the variations across Grade 3 through 5 were small. The pattern of increases or decreases varied by N/RC category.

8. 2006 English Language Arts Performance in Grades 6, 7, and 8 by Need/Resource Capacity Category In every N/RC category, 8 th graders performed less well than 6 th graders. The decrease was smaller in Average and Low Need Districts than in High Need Districts. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

9. 2006 Mathematics Total Public Across Grades 3-8, almost 66 percent of students met 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

10. 2006 Mathematics Total Public About 11 percent of students scored at Level 1. The percentage of students scoring at Level 1 increased at every grade level except grade 7. Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

11. Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4 2006 Mathematics Performance by Grade Level and Need/Resource Capacity Category In each N/RC 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.

12. 3-8 Testing : “Thin (3, 5, 7) vs. Fat (4, 6, 8)” Forms  Tests are on different scales; since we did not create a vertical scale, no scaling was done across grade levels, (i.e. 3, 5, & 7 were not equated with 4, 6, and 8).  Grade-To-Grade comparisons can be done by examining the percentage of students in different proficiency categories not in terms of growth in scale scores.

13. 3-8 Testing Topics: “Thin (3, 5, 7) vs. Fat (4, 6, 8)” Forms  Regardless of test form, all tests are aligned with NYS Learning Standards and meet blueprint specifications; as such they are valid assessment tools.

14. 3-8 Testing Topics: At Large  Data Analysis  Return of Test Results for 2007: Still using Post-Equating Model; & Prior to end of academic Year  Grow Issues/Local Data Warehouses  Accountability Growth Models

15. USDOE Peer Review Update  NCLB requires that, by the 2005-06 school year, states have in place: challenging academic content and achievement standards in reading/language arts and math; and an aligned assessment system that measures student achievement towards meeting those standards in Grades 3-8 and once in Grades 10-12.  Goal – to enable all students to meet challenging academic content and achievement standards

16. USDOE Peer Review Update  Title I, Part A accountability requires States to determine AYP, in part, by annually administering tests “aligned with challenging academic content and student academic achievement standards” in “reading or language arts” to all students.

17. Peer Review – NYS Results  On June 27, 2006, SED received a letter from Assistant Secretary Henry L. Johnson stating that NYS must provide additional evidence to meet NCLB requirements.  USDOE has determined that NYS is not incompliance with NCLB with respect to: NYSESLAT Assessment of ungraded students Alternative assessment for students with disabilities  NYS must come into full compliance by end of 2006-07 school year.

18. Peer Review – Important Memos  August 2006: Jean Stevens-LEP/ELL Student Statewide Assessment Policy/Title I Requirements  August 2006: Jean Stevens & Rebecca Cort-Revised Guidelines for Participation of Students with Disabilities in State Assessments for 2006-2007

19. Peer Review – Important Memos  August 2006: David Abrams & James DeLorenzo-Important Changes Regarding Administration of the New York State Alternate Assessment for 2006-07

20. Graduation Rate: Board of Regents Discussion  Current graduation-rate standard for accountability is 55%, lower even than the 64% 4 year graduation rate achieved by the 2001 Total Cohort.  Higher Standard will work to improve graduation rates in 2 ways: more schools will be required to raise their rates; and lowest performing schools will be required to increase graduations at a faster rate.

21. 2001 Total Cohort Graduation Rate After 4 Years Graduation Rate Interval Number of Schools Percent of Schools Below 55%18520.4% 55-59%293.2% 60-64%333.6% 65-69%637.0% 70-74%849.3% 75-79%10912.0% 80-84%12213.5% 85-89%12714.0% 90-94%9710.7% 95-100%576.3 Total906100% See Regents Item Closing the Achievement Gap: Setting a Target for High School Graduation Rates October 2006

22. The Relationship Between Graduation and Attendance Rates: 2001 Cohort High School Daily Average Attendance Rate High School Graduation Rate <83.034.6% 83.1-88.451.2% 88.5-91.765.4% 91.8-93.071.5% 93.1-94.078.7% 94.1-94.782.7% 94.8-95.184.7% 95.2-95.786.4% 95.8-96.387.3% 96.4-10087.2% See Regents Item Closing the Achievement Gap: Setting Targets for High School Attendance: October 2006 Regents Meeting

23. Open Dialog  Questions/Comments