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) 2006/2007Mathematics%

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


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


2006

2007

69 69 72 71 73 7375 76 76 76 77 76

0102030405060708090

100


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



• 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


2006

2007

82 82 84 84 85 86 83 8481 81 82 83

0102030405060708090

100


2006

2007

Statewide Writing Summary for 2007



• 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


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


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


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


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


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


White

Black

Hispanic

4

2223

8

33

38

3

14

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50


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


• 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


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


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


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


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


•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


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


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


Special Ed.

Non Special Ed.

% A

t/A

bo

ve G

oal

41

5

55

11

34

4

05

101520253035404550556065


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


ELL

Non-ELL

% A

t/A

bo

ve G

oal

30

10

58

18

22

7

05

101520253035404550556065


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


ELL

Non-ELL

% A

t/A

bo

ve G

oal

39

8

69

14

37

6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70


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”

http://www.sde.ct.gov/sde/site/default.asp

connecticut mastery test scores 2007 briefing for superintendents july 27, 2007

Documents

basic slide

reading slide

atabove goal grade

goal gap

goal scores

atabove proficiency

naep scores slide

naep grade