document resume ud 025 951 connecticut …:en ed 289 939 document resume ud 025 951 title...

:en

ED 289 939

DOCUMENT RESUME

UD 025 951

TITLE Connecticut Education Evaluation and RemedialAssistance. Grade 8 Mastery Test Results: Summary andInterpretations 1986-87.

INSTITUTION Connecticut State Dept. of Education, Hartford.PUB DATE 87NOTE 140p.; For other Mastery Test results, see UD 025

949-950.PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; *Academic Standards;

Behavioral Objectives; *Grade 8; Junior High Schools;Language Arts; *Mastery Tests; Mathematics; Scoring;*Test Construction; Writing Instruction

IDENTIFIERS *Connecticut

ABSTRACTThe central aspect of Connecticut's agenda for

educational equity and excellence is the implementation of statewidemastery testing in mathematics and language arts. The program,designed for grades four, six, and eight, assesses the skill levelsof students-by measuring their performance on learning objectivesthey should have mastered in lower grades. Student performance alsoindicates the effectiveness of remedial assistance programs andregular instruction. This report summarizes the development andimplementation of the Grade Eight Mastery Test. These four steps inthe program are discussed: (1) mastery test development; (2) settingmastery standards by objective; (3) test administration and scoring;and (4) school district test results reporting. Statewide masterytest results are given for Fall 1986. Four charts show the percentageof students who achieved mastery for each test objective. Thelearning objectives, sample score report, and information about theschool districts are presented in 11 appendices. (VM)

***********************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.**********************************************************************

/A

CONNECTICUTEDUCATION EVALUATIONAND REMEDIAL ASSISTANCE

GRADE 8MASTERY TEST RESULTSSUMMARY AND INTERPRETATIONS1986-87

CONNECTICUT

EERU.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

Vitus document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it.

O Minor changes have been made to tmproareproduction quality

Points of view or opinions stated in Mut doomment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy

"PEPMISSION TO REPRODUCE THISMATERIAL HAS BEEV GRANTED BY

TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC).

STATE OF CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE

State of Connecticut

William A. O'Neill, Governor

Board of Education

Abraham Glassman, ChairmanJames J. Szerejko, Vice ChairmanA. Walter EsdaileWarren J. FoleyDorothy C. GoodwinRita L HendelJohn F. MannixJulia S. RankinHumberto Solano

Norma Foreman Glasgow (ex officio)Commissioner. of Higher Education

Gerald N. TirozziCommissioner of Education

Frank A. AltierlDeputy CommissionerFinance and Operations

Lorraine M. AronsonDeputy CommissionerProgram and Support Services

3

,

ConnecticutEducation Evaluation and Remedial Assistance

GRADE 8 MASTERY TEST RESULTS

SMART AND INTERPRETATIONS: 1986-87

STATE OF CONNECT CUT DEPAR]MEIT OF EDUCATION

4

CONTENTS

ForewordAcknowledgements vii

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND 1

OVERVIEW OF THE MASTERY TEST DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 2

Test Construction 2

Pilot Tests 3

Survey 4

Mastery Test Content 4

SETTING MASTERY STANDARDS BY OBJECTIVE 5

Setting Remedial (Grant) Standards 6

TEST ADMINISTRATION AND SCORING 7

Testing Guidelines: Grade Eight Connecticut Mastery Test 8

Scoring of the Language Arts and Mathematics Test 8

Scoring of the Writing Sample 8

Analytic Scoring 11Scoring of the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test 11

SCHOOL DISTRICT TEST RESULTS REPORTING 11

FALL 1986 STATEWIDE MASTERY TEST RESULTS 12

Mathematics 12

Language Arts 12

Test Results by District 17

Participation Rate Results 17

Charts

Chart 1: Mathematics: Percent of StudentsAchieving Mastery for Each Objective 13

Chart 2: Language Arts: Percent of StudentsAchieving Mastery for Each Objective 14

Chart 3: Writing Sample: Percent of Students at Each Score Point 15Chart 4: Degrees of Reading Power: Percent of Students

at Selected Ranges of DRP Unit Scores 16

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Grade Eight Mathematics Objectives 19

Appendix B: Grade Eight Language Arts Objectives 23

Appendix C: Remedial (Grant) Staadard-Setting Process 25

Standard-Setting Committees 30

Appendix D: Marker Papers for Holistic Scoring 31

Appendix E: Grade Eight Analytic Rating Guide and Marker Papersfor Analytic Scoring 41

Appendix F: Sample Grade Eight Mastery Test Score Reports 47

Appendix G: Number of Objectives Mastered 61

Appendix H: Fall 1986 Grade 8 State by District Report: Mathematics 65

Appendix I: Fall 1986 Grade 8 State by District Report: Language Arts 81

Appendix J: Type of Community Classifications 89

Appendix R: Student Participation Rates 91

-iv-

6

FOREWORD

One of my highest priorities and a very central aspect of Conne cicut'sChanel) e: An Agenda for Educational E uity and Excellence is theimplementation of the statewide mastery testing program in mathematics andlanguage arts, including listening, reading and writing, for grades four, six,

and eight. The testing program is designed to assess specific skill levels ofstudents by measuring performance on various learning objectives that studentsreasonably can be expected to have mastered by the end of grades three, five,and seven.

The results of the Connecticut Mastery Test are useful in evaluating:

o individual student performance in mathematics and language arts;

o the effectiveness of instructional programs in mathematics andlanguage arts; and

o the effectiveness of the remedial assistance programs in mathematicsand :anguage arts.

The Grade Eight Connecticut Mastery Test, given for the first time in the fallof 1986, provides valuable educational information which can be used toimprove instruction and the basic skills of Connecticut's students. The test

results have helped local districts to re-examine curriculum and to identifystudents who have not mastered certain skills.

I encourage you to carefully review the mastery test results provided at thestudent, classroom and district levels. The Department is prepared to assistlocal school districts in the areas of curriculum and professional development.

Gerald N. TirozziCommissioner of Education

-v- 7

MASTERY TEST IMPLEMENTATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Thomas Jokubaitis, Chair, Wolcott Public SchoolsGerry BrownSpringer, New Britain Public SchoolsBenjamin Dixon, Bloomfield Public SchoolsTimothy Doyle, Regional School District No. 4Richard Dubow, Wilton, ConnecticutCharles Guinta, Walden Book Co., Inc.Cosby Marable, Hamden Public SchoolsJohanna Murphy, Hartford, ConnecticutOlive Niles, East Hartford, ConnecticutPhilip Pelosi, Watertown Public SchoolsEdward Reidy, West Hartford Public SchoolsLouis Saloom, Meriden Public SchoolsHark Waxenberg, Eust Hartford Public Schools .

Lauren WeisbergKaufman, CT Business & Industry Assoc.

MATHEMATICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Steve Leinwand, Chair, CT State Department of EducationLinda Ball, Glastonbury Public SchoolsPat Banning, Windham Public SchoolsBetsy Carter, CT State Department of EducationMitchell Chester, Suffield Public SchoolsWalter Clearwaters, Naval Underwater Sys. Ctr., New LondoLeroy Dupee, Bridgeport Public SchoolsDavid Howell, New Haven Public SchoolsMarcia Kenefick, CT State Department of EducationHilda Negron, Hartford Public SchoolsMary Ann Papa, West Hartford Public Schools

Joanne Parr, Bloomfield Public SchcolsPhilip Pelosi, Watertown Public SchoolsHelen Prescott, Ashford Public SchoolsJoyce Reilly, Meriden Public SchoolsCarolyn Rosenfield, Norwalk Public SchoolsSylvia Schmutzler, Middletown, ConnecticutJan Siegel, Ridgefield Public School('Dolores Vecchfarelli, Westport Public Schools

BIAS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Lillian Cruz, Chair, CT State Department of EducationBenjamin Dixon, Bloomfield Public SchoolsM. Claudius Fabregas, Bridgeport Public SchoolsJanet C. Huber, Windham Public SchoolsRita Jackson, Stamford Public SchoolsSusan McCarthy-Miller, South Windsor Public SchoolsHarriet McComb, Yale Child Study CenterRonald S. McMullen, New Haven Public SchoolsJames F. Mitchell, Groton Public SchoolsAngel Muniz, Bridgeport Public SchoolsLyn Nevins, Cooperative Educational ServicesRobert Pitacco, Hartford Public SchoolsRosa Quezada, New Haven Public SchoolsNelson Quinby, Regional School District No. 9

-vii-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

LANGUAGE ARTS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Robert Kinder, Chair, CT State Department of EducationRuth Allen, Western CT State UniversityEvelyn Burnham, Colebrook Public SchoolsSue Deffenbaugh, West Hartford Public SchoolsMartin Espinola, Granby Public SchoolsMary Fisher, Thmapson Public SchoolsMarguerite Fuller, Bridgeport Public SchoolsJohn Hennelly, Old Saybrcoh Public SchoolsJane Jaaskela, Brooklyn Public SchoolsJean Klein, Newtown Public SchoolsOlive Niles, East Hartford, ConnecticutJacqueline Norcel, Trumbull Public SchoolsCarol Parmelee, Middletown Public SchoolsLucille Rios, Hartford Public SchoolsRonald Rymash, North Stonington Public SchoolsGeraldine Smith, Canton Public SchoolsMary WeiUland, CT State Department of Education

PSYCHOMETRICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Robert Gable, Chair, University of ConnecticutBaxter Atkinson, Hartford Public SchoolsDel Eberhardt, Greenwich Public SchoolsVictor Ferry, Waterford Public SchoolsDiane Klotz, New London Public Schools

n Michael Muro, Norwalk Public SchoolsEdward Reidy, West Hartford Public SchoolsJudy Singer, Stamford Public SchoolsJames Snyder, Windsdr Public SchoolsWilliam Streich, Farmington Public SchoolsJ. A. Camille Vautour, South Windsor Public Schools

Special thanks to:

John Whritner, former Chair, Mastery Test ImplementationAdvisory Committee and East Lyme Public Schools

Marsha Van Hise, language arts committee alternate,Trumbull Public Schools

LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND

In June 1984, the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut amended Section10-14 m-r of the Connecticut General Statutes, an act concerning EducationEvaluation and Remedial Assistance (EERA). This law provides that:

o By May 1, 1985, each local or regional board of education shalldevelop and submit for State Board of Education approval, a new planof educational evaluation and remedial assistance. Each plan is toaddress the following:

o the use of student assessment results for instructionalimprovement;

o the identification of individual students in need of remedialassistance in language arts/reading, and mathematics;

o the provision of remedial assistance to students with identifiedneeds; and

o the evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructionalprograms in language arts/reading, and mathematics.

o The State Board of Education shall administer an annual statewidemastery test in language arts/reading, and mathematics to allfourth-, sixth-, and eighth-grade students.

o Each student who scores below the statewide remedial standard on oneor more parts of the eighth-grade mastery examination or the ninthgrade proficiency test shall be retested. Starting in October 1987,these students shall be retested annually, using the eighth-grademastery test, only in the deficient area(s) until such students scoreat or above the statewide remedial standard(s).

o Biennially, each local or regional board of education shall submit tothe State Board of Education a report which includes indicators ofstudent achievement and instructional improvement.

o On a regularly 'cheduled basis, the State Board of Education shallcomplete field assessments of the implementation of local EERA plans.

o On an annual basis, test results and low income data shall be used todetermine the distribution of available state funds to supportremedial assistance programs.

The purpose of this report is to summarize the development andimplementation of the eighth-grade Connecticut Mastery Test. The mastery testassesses how well each student is performing on those skills identified bycontent experts and practicing educators as important for students enteringeighth grade to have mastered.

-1-9

OVERVIEW OF THE MASTERY TEST DEVELOIMENT PROCESS

In the spring of 1984, the Connecticut General Assembly amended the EducationEvaluation and Remedial Assistance (SERA) legislation to authorize thecreation of mastery tests in the basic skill areas 'of mathematics and languagearts, including listening, reading and writing skills. The tests were to beestablished for grades 4, 6, and 8.

The goals of the mastery testing program are:

o earlier identification of students needing remedial education;o testing a more comprehensive range of academic skills;o setting high expectations and standards for student achievement;o more useful test achievement iaformation about students, schools and

districts;o improved assessment of suitable equal educational opportunities; ando continual monitoring of students in grades 4, 6, and 8.

The type of test that best addresses these goals is a criterion-referencedtest. Criterion-referenced tests are designed to assess the specific skilllevels of students. Such tests usually cover relatively small units ofcontent. Their scores have meaning in terms of what the student knows or cando. Test results are used to identify the areas of strengths and weaknessesof each student.

Test Construction

The development of the eighth-grade criterion-referenced mastery test requiredthe formation of seven statewide advisory committees. These included theMathematics and Language Arts Committees, the Psychometrics Committee, theBias Committee, the Mastery Test Implementation Advisory Committee, and two

standard-setting committees, one for mathematics and one for language arts.These committees were comprised of representatives from throughout the state.Members were selected for their area of expertise. Approximately 150Connecticut educators participated on the mastery test committees which metover 80 times over an 18-month period (see Acknowledgements, p. vii).

Beginning in the spring of 1985, content committees in both language artsand mathematics participated in each stage of the test development process,including assisting the State Department of Education in the selection of thePsychological Corporation as its test contractor. First, the contentcommittees reviewed the curriculum materials prevalent throughout the stateand the scope of the national tests in use in Connecticut at the respectivegrade levels. Additional resources included the Connecticut curriculum guidesin mathematics and language.arts, developed in 1981, as well as the results ofrecent Connecticut Assessment of Educational Progress (CAEP) assessments inmathematics and language arts. Next, the committees identified sets ofpreliminary mathematics and language arts objectives which reflected existingcurriculum materials and the goals of the mastery testing program. Thecontent committees defined an objective as an operationalized learning outcomethat was fairly narrow and clearly defined.

Four criteria we' used in identifying the appropriate learning outcomesor test objectives and in selecting specific test items to be included on theGrade 8 Connecticut Mastery Test. To have been considered for use, testobjectives and items must have been:

(1) significant and important;

(2) developmentally appropriate;(3) reasonable for most students to achieve; and(4) generally representative of what is taught in Connecticut schools.

Once the objectives were identified, item specifications and/or sampleitems were written. Ittm specifications are written descriptions of the types

and forms of test items that assess an objective. They also prescribe thetypes of answer choices that can be used with each item.

After the test specifications were written and agreed upon, the testcontractor wrote items and response choices for each of the objectives. The

items were then reviewed by the content committees. Items which met thecriteria of the test specifications and received the approval of the contentcommittees were considered for the pilot test. Before testing, the BiasCommittee reviewed each item for potential adverse discrimination of gender,race or ethnicity in the language or format of the question or responsechoices. After their review was completed, the pilot test forms wereconstructed. Over 1600 customized Connecticut items were included in theOctober 1985 Grade 8 pilot test in language arts and mathematics.

The Psychometrics Committee provided advice concerning other aspects ofthe pilot test including the sampling design, statistical bias analysis, thedesign of item specifications, and pilot test administration procedures. The

recommendations proposed by the Psychometrics Committee were reviewed andendorsed by the Mastery Test Implementation Advisory Committee.

Pilot Tests

After the items had been reviewed, twelve test forms (six is mathematics, andsix in language arts) were piloted for the Grade 8 test. The purpose ofseveral pilot test forms was to enscre that enough test items were included toconstruct three comparable test forms from the pilot test results.

Over 8,000 Grade 8 students participated in the October 1985 pilot test.In January 1986, the pilot test results were made available to ConnecticutState Department of Education (CSDE) staff. The process of selecting items toconstruct three comparable test forms began by the Bias Committee examiningthe pilot test statistics of each item for potential bias. As a result, someitems were.eliminated from the item pool. From the remaining items, testforms were constructed to be equivalent in conte.tt and difficulty at both the

objective and total test levels.

11

Once the items were sorted on this basis, the test contractor preparedthree complete forms of the mathematics test and two complete forms of thelanguage arts test. Thiele forms were approved by the content committees.Each form was created to be equal in difficulty and test length. A tairdlanguage arts test will be constructed after a few additional items arepiloted as part of a future test administration. The psychometric proceduresused to construct these test forms focus erimarily on the use of theone-parameter latent trait model.

Survey

In October 1985, a survey of preliminary Grade 8 mastery test objectives wassent to over 4,000 Connecticut educators. The purpose of the survey was todetermine (1) the importance of the proposed mathematics and reading/languagearts objectives; and (2) whether the objectives were taLght prior to the fallof grade 8. Approximately a 45% response rate was achieved which includedapproximately one-third of the respondents representing urt-a schooldistricts. Thirty-six out of the thirty-seven original objectives were judgedto be important learning skills or outcomes.

Mastery Test Content

Mathematics. The Mathematics Committee recommended a Grade 8mathematics test that assessed thirty-six (36) specific objectives in fourdomains: (1) Conceptual Understanding; (2) Computatioual Skills; (3) ProblemSolving/Applications; and (4) Measurement/Geometry. There are four test itemsper objective for a total of 144 items on the mathematics test. A detailedlist of domains and objectives is given in Appendix A (p. 19).

Language Arts. The Language Arts committee recommended a 111 itemGrade 8 language arts test that cover- two domains: Reading/Listening, andWriting/Study Skills. The eleven (11) objectives recommended by the LanguageArts Committee are presented in Appendix B (p. 23).

The general content area of Reading/Listenim consisted of narrative,expository, and perauasive passages on a variety of topics measuring astudent's ability in: (1) Literal Comprehension; (2) Inferential orInterpretive Comprehension; and (3) Critical or Evaluative Comprehension.Audiotapes were used to assess students' listening comprehension ability in:(1) Literal Comprehension and (2) Inferential and Evaluative Comprehension.The Degrees.of Reading Power (DRP) test was als:.1 used to assess reading. The)1tRP test included eleven (1]) passages and seventy-seven (77) test items. Itvas designed to measure a student's ability to underst nonfiction Englishprose at different levels of reading ability.

-4- 12

The general content area of Writing/Study Skills consisted of threecomponents. First, there was a holistic writing sample where writing skillswere directly assessed. Each student was asked to write a composition on adesignated topic. Writing was then judged on a student's demonstrated abilityto convey information in a coherent and organized fashion. Second, themechanics of good writing, which was defined as (1) Capitalization andPunctuation, (2) Spelling, (3) Agreement, and (4) Tone was assessed in amultiple choice format. Third, Study Skills were assessed through LocatingInformation and Notetaking/Outlining. Locating Information (Schedules, Maps,Index and Reference Use) measured a student's ability to find and useinformation from the sources listed. Notetaking and Outlining tested astudent's ability to take notes and report information as well as completemissing outline information. A detailed list of objectives and number ofitems per objective is given in Appendix B (p. 23).

SETTING MASTERY STANDARDS BY OBJECTIVE

The essence of the Connecticut Mastery Test (CMT) is the establishment of aspecific mastery standard that accurately reflects students' knowledge andcompetency on each objective. The mastery test incorporates appropriate andchallenging expectations for Connecticut public school students. The goal ofthe (MT Program is for each student to achieve mastery of all objectives. Theobjectives being tested ware identified as appropriate and reasonable forstudents at each of the grades tested. These tests are designed to measure astudent's performance against these specific objectives.

The process of establishing the mastery standards by objective used astatistical method that required two decisiofts to be operationalized. Thefirst decision defined a student who mastered a particular skill as one whohad a 95% chance of correctly answering each item within the objective. Thesecond decision was that the specific standard for each objective wouldidentify 99% of the students who mastered the skill. For example, literalreading comprehension is measured by 8 questions. By applying the twodecision rules stated above to a binomial distribution table, a student isidentified as mastering the skill if he/she gets at least 6 of the 8 itemscorrect.

The mastery standards are as follows:

o In mathematics, for each of the 36 objectives, a student must answercorrectly at least 3 out of 4 items.

o In language arts, for the eleven multiple choice objectives withvarying numbers of items, a student must answer correctly thefollowing number of items:

-5-

13

WRITING MECHANICS(1) Capitalization & Punctuation(2) Spelling(3) Agreement(4) Tone

STUDY SKILLS(5) Locating Information(6) Notetaking and Outlining

LISTENING COMPREHENSION(7) Literal(8) Inferential & Evaluative

READING COMPREHENSION(9) Literal

(10) Inferential(11) Evaluative

# ITEMS CORRECTFOR MASTERY

9 out of 126 out of 8



3 out of 4

12 out of 16

6 out of 8


No mastery levels were set for the two holistic language arts measures,the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) test and the Writing Sample, since thesemeasures are not composed of objectives against which mastery could beassessed.

Setting Remedial (Grant) Standards

The Psychometrics Committee also considered alternative ways to set standardsfor grant and remedial purposes. Section 10-14 m-r of the CT General Statutesrequires that the Connecticut State Board of Education establish statewidestandards for remedial assistance in order to meet two responsibilities:

to identify and monitor the progress of students in need, of remedialassistance in language arts/reading and mathematics as part of theEERA field assessments; and

to distribute EERA funds based on the number of needy studentsstatewide, as well as for use in the Chapter 2 and Priority SchoolDistrict Grants.

The Psychometrics Committee advised setting the standards by the number ofitems correct because of important technical considerations in equating testforms. The committee conducted lengthy deliberations over the technicalfeasibility of establishing standards by the number of objectives passed butfelt there were significant obstacles which could not be overcome.Standard-setting committees in mathematics and language arts/reading wereconvened in March 1986 to determine the grant/remedial standards. Thestandard-setting committees recommended the following remedial standards:

14-6-

1. In mathematics, a student who answers fewer than 78 of the 144 items(54%) correctly is required to receive further diagnosis by the localschool district and, if necessary, to be provided with remedialassistance.

2. In reading, a student whose Degrees of Readirg Power (DRP) unit scoreis lower than 55 is required to receive furtber diagnosis and, ifnecessary, to be provided with remedial assistance.

3. In writing, a student receiving a total holistic score less than 4 isrequired to receive further diagnosis by the local school districtand, if necessary, to be provided with remedial assistance.

The recommendations of the Psychometrics Committee and theStandard-Setting Committees were reviewed by the Mastery Test ImplementationAdvisory Committee in March 1)86. The Mastery Test Implementation AdvisoryCommittee (MTIAC) endorsed the procedures used to establish the remedialstandards with the clarification that the remedial standards should beconsidered broad indicators of student achievement and need. Thecriterion- referenced test is a valuable diagnostic tool used to help districtsidentify students in need of remedial assistance, to target State Departmentof Education resources to those students most in need, and to provide usefulinformation to local school districts for improving their curriculum andinstructional programs. The MTIAC felt strongly that the data generated bythe State Department of Education should not be used to compare performanceamong districts.

The mastery and remedial standards were adopted, as recommended, by theState Board of Education on June 4, 1986. For a detailed explanation of theremedial standard-setting process, see Appendix C (p. 25).

TEST ADMINISTRATION AND SC(11NG

Test sessions were conducted by local school district staff under thesupervision of local test coordinators who had been trained by staff of theDepartment and The Psychological Corporation. A student who took all subtestsparticipated in approximately eight hours of testing.

The Grade 8 Mastery Test schedule allowed for three weeks of testing(including make-ups). This allowed local districts as much latitude aspossible in adapting test administration to local conditions, in meetingstudents' needs, and in accommodating religious holidays that Occur duringtesting. Local plans for administration of the Grade 8 Mastery Test wereacceptable if the following guidelines were met for all students:

-7-

1 5

Testing Guidelines: Grade 8 Connecticut Mastery Test

a) The writing sample MUST occur on Tuesday, September 23, 1986.b) Other testing must occur sometime between September 22

and October 3, 1986, with make-up testing during the week ofOdtober 6-10.

c) All eighth graders in -a district must be tested on the same schedule.d) Testing must occur during the regular school day in a regular

classroom setting.e) No more than two (2) testing sessions may be administered in one day

with at least a fiftee minute break between testing sessions (e.g.,two a.m. sessions or one a.m. session and one p.m. session).

f) Make -up sessions MUST conclude by Fridcy, October 10, 1986.Conditions "d" and "e" above must also hold for all make-up sessions.

The Grade 8 Connecticut Mastery Test had eight testing sessions.

Mathematics I (60 minutes)Mathematics II (60 minutes)Mathematics III (60 minutes)Writing Sample (45 minutes)Degrees of Reading Power (70 minutes)Reading Comprehension (60 minutes)Listening Comprehension (45 minutes)Writing Mechanics/Study Skills (60 minutes)

At the conclusion of the make-up testing period, answer booklets werereturned to National Computer Systems (NCS) of Iowa City, Iowa for opticalscanning and scoring, and then organized in preparation for holistic scoringworkshops.

Scoring of the Language Arts and Mathematics Test

The mathematics and language arts multiple-choice tests were machine-scored byNCS. Mathematics scores were reported for the total test as well as formastery by each objective. Likewise, language arts scores were reported forthe total test as well as for mastery of each objective.

Scoring of the Writing Sample

The writing sample was scored by Connecticut elementary teachers using atechnique known as the holistic scoring method. Holistic scoring is animpressionistic and quick scoring process that rates written products on thebasis of their overall quality. It relies upon the scorers' trainedunderstanding of the general features that determine distinct levels ofachievement on a scale appropriate to the group of writing pieces beingevaluated.

1 6-8-

The major assumption upon which holistic scoring is based is that thequality of a piece of writing should be js,dged on its overall success as awhole presentation, rather than on the quality of its component parts.Contributing to the rationale underlying holistic scoring is evidence that:(1) no aspect of writing skill can really be judged independently; (2)teachers can recognize and agree upon good writing when they see it regardlessof how they describe writing ability; and (3) teachers will rate pieces ofwriting in much the same way regardless of any discrepant views they mighthold about how particular components of writing should be weighed.

The procedure for holistic scoring is specific to the complete set ofwriting samples on a given topic that a group of scorers have been asked toevaluate. That is, the scoring scale is based on the range of abilityreflected in the particular set of writing samples being assessed.

Preparation for scoring. Prior to the. training/scoring sessions, acommittee consisting of Connecticut State iTartment of Education (CSDE)consultants, representatives of the language arts committee and other languagearts specialists, two Chief Readers and project staff from Measurement Inc. ofDurham, North Carolina, met and read a substantial number of essays drawn fromthe total pool of essays to be scored. Approximately 60 essays were selectedto serve as "range-finders" or "marker papers," representing the range ofachieveient demonstrated in the total set of papers. Copies of thoserange finders served as training papers during the scoring workshops whichfollowed. Each range-finder paper was assigned a score according to afour-point scale, where 1 represented a poor paper and 4 represented asuperior paper.

Scoring workshops. During the month of November, eight holistic scoringworkshops were held in two different locations in the state. Attendance atthe grade eight scoring workshops totaled 210 teachers. A Chief Reader andtwo aesistaLts were present at every workshop in addition to representativesof the CSDE. Each workshop consisted of a training session and a scoringsession.

The general procedure for a training session is described below.

o Each training paper (range-finder) was studied in turn andtrial-scored by all scorers. Scoring judgments were independent,quick, immediate, and were based on the scorer's overall impressionof the paper. No fractional potats on the score scale (1-4) werepermissible.

o After all scorers had scored the first four training papers, theirjudgments were compared to the score assigned during therange - finding process. Any discrepancies were discussed. Throughrepeated discussions on succeeding training papers, scorers came toidentify and internalize those features of written composition thatdistinguish the papers along the established range. This "holistic"process obviates the need to articulate explicitly the specificcriteria that separate one score point from the next.

1(

o Scorers were "calibrated" by ascertaining that they were makingjudgments consistent with one another and with the Chief Reader.Discussions about papers continued until agreement was reached on the

scores of the training papers.

Once scorers were calibrated, actual scoring of the writing exercisesoccurred. Each paper was read independently by two different scorers; thatis, the second reader did not see the score assigned by the first reader. TheChief Reader was responsible for adjudicating any disagreement of more thanone point between the judgments of the two scorers as well as any score incombination with a zero score. In other words, discrepancies of one pointbetween scores (e.g., 4 and 3, 1 and 2, 2 and 3) were acceptable, but largerdiscrepancies (e.g., 2 and 4, 3 and 1, 1 and 4) had to be resolved by the

Chief Reader. Once a paper was assigned two non-discrepant scores, the twoscores would be summed to produce the final score for each student. The

possible scale of summed scores ranged from a low of 2 to a high of 8.

Understanding the holistic scores. Examples of actual student papers

which are representative of the scoring range will assist the reader inunderstanding the statewide standard set for writing and interpreting the test

results. Sample papers representing four different holistic scores arepresented in Appendix D (p. 31). Note that the process of summing the scoresassigned by the two readers expands the .,coring scale to account for

"borderline" papers. A paper which receives a 4 from both scorers (for atotal score of 8) is likely to be better than a paper to which one readerassigns a 4 and another reader assigns a 3 (for a total score of 7). In

addition, it should be emphasized that each of the score points represents arange of student papers--some 4 papers are better than others.

A score of zero (0) was assigned to student papers in certain cases. Ascore of 0 indicates that a paper is not scorable and, therefore, that thestudent's writing skills remain to be assessed. The cases in which a score of

0 was assigned were as follows:

o responses merely repeated the assignment;

o illegible responses;

o blank responses;

o responses in languages other than English;

o responses that failed to address the assigned topic in any way; and/or

o responses that were too brief to score accurately, but whici.demonstrated no signs of serious writing problems (for example, aresponse by a student who wrote the essay first on scratch paper andwho failed to get very much of it recopied).

18-10-

Both readers had to agree that a paper deserved a zero before this scorewas assigned. If the two readers disagreed, the Chief Reader arbitrated thediscrepancy. Papers which were assigned a score of zero were not included insummary reports of test results.

Analytic Scoring

All papers receivirg holistic scores below the remedial standard also receivedanalytic scoring in five categories (traits): focus, organization, support/elaboration, mechanics and sentence formation. Analytic scoring is athorough, trait-by-trait analysis of those components of a writing sample thatare considered important to any piece of writing in any context. This scoringprocedure can provide a comprehensive picture of a student's writingperformance if enough traits are analyzed. It can identify those traits thatmake a piece of writing effective or ineffective. However, the traits need tobe explicit and well defined so that the raters understand and agree upon thebasis for making judgments about the writing sample. The analytic ratingguide and sample marker papers for the analytic scoring are presented inAppendix E (p. 41).

Scoring of the Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) Test

The scores reported are in DRP unit. scores. These scores identify thedifficulty or readability level of prose that a student can read withcomprehension. This makes it possible to match the difficulty of writtenmaterials with student ability. These scores can be better interpreted byreferring to the readability levels of some general reading materials as shownbelow:

o Elementary textbooks (grades 7-9) - 54-65 DRP Units

o Personality Section - teen magazines - 55 DRP Units

o Adult General Interest Magazines - fiction - 60 DRP Units

A much more extensive list of reading materials is contained and rated inthe booklet Readability Report, Seventh Edition, published by The CollegeBoard.

The conversion between DRP unit scores and raw scores can be made from thetabled values in The College Board's Degrees of Reading Power Form PB SeriesCoLversion Tables, effective March, 1985.

SCHOOL DISTRICT ZEST RESULTS REPORTING

The CMT school district reports are designed to provide useful andcomprehensive test achievement information about students, schools anddistricts. Four standard test reports are generated to assist teachers,principaRs, superintendents and parents to understand and usecriterion - referenced test results. Appendix F (p. 47) presents samples of theschool district and parent/student diagnostic score reports.

19

FALL 1986 STATEWIDE MASTERY TEST RESULTS

The Grade Eight Connecticut Mastery Test provides a comprehensive report cardon how students perform on specific skills that Connecticut educators feel areimportant at the beginning of eighth grade. The mastery test isinstructionally useful since it identifies areas of weakness, as well as areasof strength.

Mathematics

In mathematics,,eighth graders mastered an average of 23.7 objectives of the36 tested, or 65.8 percent. The state's goal is that all students masterevery objective, or 100 percent. Chart 1 (p. 13) illustrates that, statewide,students demonstrated strong scores in the areas of basic computational skills(such as multiplication/division with whole numbers and addition/subtractionwith whole numbers and decimals); rounding of whole numbers; and computingwith calculators. However, students did not perform as well on items thatassess computational skills with fractions and mixed numbers; measurement; andsolving process problems involving the organization of data.

A total of 35 percent of the students mastered 29 or more objectives onthe mathematics test, and 4 percent mastered all 36 objectives (seeAppendix G, p. 61).

Students getting fewer than 78 questions correct on the 144-questionmathematics section (177.) were identified as needing further diagnosis andpossible remedial instruction.

Language Arts

In language arts, eighth grade students averaged 7.5 objectives of the eleventested, or 68.2 percent. The state's goal is that all students master everyobjective, or 100 percent. Chart 2 (p. 14) illustrates that while studentsdid reasonably well on writing mechanics and on study skills, significantweaknesses were found in higher order inferential and evaluative readingcomprehension and literal listening comprehension. A total of 48 percent ofthe students mastered nine or more objectives on the language arts test, whichincludes writing and reading skills, and 21 percent of the students masteredall eleven objectives (see Appendix G, p. 61).

In writing, eighth grade students averaged 5.0 points on a scale of 2through 8. The state's goal is that all students be able to produce anorganized, well-supported piece of writing, that is, a score of 7 or 8.Chart 3 (p. 15) illustrates that 20 percent of the students produced anorganized, well-supported piece of writing (a 7 or an 8 score), and anadditional 39 percent produced a paper which is senerally well organized (a 5or a 6 score). Another large group, 25 percent, scored a 4, which is definedas a "minimally proficient piece of writing." A total of 17 percent of thestudents scored a 2 or a 3, which is below the remedial standard.

-12- 20

MATHEMATICS:AVERAGE NUMBER OF

OBJECTIVES MASTERED

This bar chart illustrates theaverage number of mathematics objectives mastered.statewide.

MATHEMATICS: PERCENT OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY FOo EACH OBJECTIVE

O

CaCIATual wean 1.0.01MIA MaColl

C4(WALIMoe VAQUISIVIIIIM.0.01:40.41WOO., wall ftl OW lir N. W. WOO tWer INCT04. 1CTI.0184X.4445 MC1104CfpuksCOWUIT IRKTC00110.4110consOVTIN Hi 01 MAMA 'NIL SCALIA NMary MTIOSNOIRKIVNY. PM'SLWOW, POCCIPAII ION ~AMC. It$1.4101

CLINOVTATIPIALICO NO INJOIIMCI 100.11MINKMIMNMTLM Or1011.0110.1144.4ICO IMO PAW= t*OrALSID OYMICT O101ut P M PO0001101 OF OICW13A0001111PACT SUCTO4 LIO 1020 U00110.1A1rilr IFPAC110,4 NO OWSIAS011,1.04 MOM OF MAURe17e1elliA4011,11. 0,111111 .1 MO NOMAIsrtKn MCOOLCT Or was rs axe wawamwn DUCT004 IM11"11 Was el

NOMUJI SOLvIMLIMUCAtiOntacOlviltMATON warn 1X11011101W rINFif 040144. 741p MO P.A11100111. MO VIM .0141001111

MO 1.11V1.:44.04~41.}4100110410104 MOW N) MIMIWIVOrtSWIMS& 11100400 0.44141011Minfer117.01 a 404301011441140*10.414011!14 MM 177114401)1 INPCNAMNCOrtfr)d10110 PeOluth0/11.1 /MUMKrell MCCUISM0111.11.0.1400210

MaluALANDOIMITWI104W5n01.0l11443 060.4111C WW1AgAgAg 41001714a4 1/M4710 MO WAS11110401 it WineMINY01.104/..011$111C1 AMMOrradt vITAC0410.R11, tonWM WAStOCANT10.1.S.C4 woo 153714

ime

r7-Sir

=5rartnom

~7d

szawimsda., ammosaarts=r:::4.7211171t1===i:3W-.2111:16C1-

'-.

.14-4-421:mcf

:Pr

40 50 40

PERCENT OF STUDENTS

7444

70 110 90 too

This bar chart illustrates the percent of students. statewide, who mastered each of the 36 mathematics obit:409es.

21

pM rra a 1,3

ar+O 0fi

Pti

O mtt m

rtA 0trO CA

L0'. 0fti.

tAt mt-h.

03

22

LANGUAGE ARTS:AVERAGE NUMBER OF

OBJECTIVES MASTERED

O 11

c:W Ito

2fl

U

0u.0rtco

1088

YEAR

This bar chart Illustrates theaverage number of languagearts objectives mastered,statewide.

LANGUAGE ARTS: PERCENT OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY FOR EACH OBJECTIVE

WRITING MECHANICS

CAPITALIZATION AHD PUNCTUATION

SRELUNG/HOMONYIATJARIVIEVIATION$

AGREEMENT

TONE

STUDY SKILLS

LOCATING INFORMATION

NOTETAIONICUTUNINO

USTENING COMPREHENSION

LITERAL

INFERENIMUEVALUATNE

READING COMPREHENSION

UTEFtAL

INFERENTIAL

EVALUATIVE

1;st4:41: 41,7-.Yi I 72%

" ;.W.4.- c 66%76%

77%

.4 183%

: 0';:.;?1`4a4i-::,..i. 166%

f:t...r.;.;?7W.rnt*/ 162%

% a . '.Wit; :,..11;4:,:tZ4xti"....4 ..7.itirii 70%

rfiFej8 54%

":!:kkg4"1^)/ .:41;'tf 6.1 57%

I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

PERCENT OF STUDENTS

This bar chart illustrates the percent of students, statewide, who mastered each of the eleven language arts objectives.

3.

WRITING SAMPLE:AVERAGE HOUSTIC SCORE

6...

5

3

2

5.0

1986

WRITING SAMPLE:PERCENT OF STUDENTS' AT EACH SCORE POINT

30 ..--

10--

5

0

25%

2216

17%

2 3 4 5 6 7

YEAR HOLISTIC WRITING SCORES

This bar chart illustrates theaverage holistic writing scoreof students, statewide.

This bar chart illustrates the distribution of students who received east 7olistic writingscore, statewide. Holistic writing scores are Interpreted as follows: a student whoscores 7 or 8 has produced a paper which Is well written with developed suppor-tive detail; a student who scores 5 or 6 has prodmed a paper which Is generallywell organized with supportive detail: a student who scores 4 is minimally profi-dent; and a student who scores 2 or 3 is in noed of further diagnosis and possibleremedial assistance.

Chart 3Writing Sample: Percent of Students at Each Score Point

-15- 24

s

DEGREES OF READINGPOWER* (DRP)s :

AVERAGE DRPUNIT SCORE

This bar chart illustrates theaverage DRP unit score of students, statewide.

DEGREES OF READING POWERS (DRP)s ;PERCENT OF STUDENTS AT SELECTED RANGES OF DRP UNIT SCORES

500

57%

0S-2 30-0tu

27%

4"

yy

16%

10-

054 AND BELOW 55-61 62 AND ABOVE

DRP UNIT SCORES

This bar chart Illustrates the distribution of students, statewide, scoring in eachof three Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) score categories. DRP score categoriesare Interpreted as follows: a student who scores 62 DRP units or above can read,with high comprehension, materials which are typically used at grade 8 or above;a student who scores 55.61 units can read, with high comprehension, materialswhich are typically used below grade 8 but above the Remedial Standard; and astudent who scores 54 DRP units or below is In need of further diagnosis and pos-sible remedial assistance.

Chart 4Degrees of Reading Power (DRP): Percent of StudentsAt Selected Renges of DRP Unit Scores

25

In reading (Degrees of Reading Power Test), eighth grade studentsaveraged 61 DRP units on a scale of 15 through 99. The state's goal is thatall students be able to read with high comprehension materials typically usedat the eighth grade or above, that is, at least 62 on the DRP scale. Chart 4(p, 16) illustrates that 57 percent of the students scored at least 62 on thereading section, 16 percent scored between 55 and 61, and 27 percent scoredbelow 55, which is the remedial standard. The average score of 61 suggeststhat Connecticut eighth graders typically can read, with high comprehension,materials normally used up to grade 8.

Test Results by District

Appendix H (p. 65) and Appendix I (p. 81) present 1 listing of the mathematicsand language arts test results, respectively, for Connecticut schooldistricts. Sch-,,1 districts are listed alphabetically, followed by regionalschool districts. The Type of Community (TOC) designation in the secondcolumn indicates the group with which each district or school has beenclassified. A definition of the TOC classifications is provided in Appendix J(p. 89).

Because the most valid comparisons for district scores are longitudinalwithin each district, the State Department of Education advises against makingschool district comparisons. The following caution should also L, noted:

o It is not appropriate or meaningful to sum across the different testsand subtests because of differences in test length, mastery, andremedial standards. These comparisons are inappropriate since it isimpossible to identify, solely on the basis of the above information,how the average student has performed in the districts beingcompared. Average scores and standard deviations provide moreappropriate comparative information on how well the average student isperforming, although many factors may affect the comparability ofthese statistics as well.

Participation Rate Results

Appendix K (p. 91) presents the number of eighth-grade students in eachdistrict and the percents of students who participated in the grade eightmastery testing during the Fall 1986 statewide administration. Thealphabetical listing of districts provides the following information for eachdistrict:

Column 1Column 2

Column 3Column 4Columns 5-8

The name of the district.The total eighth-grade population at the start of masterytesting.

The number of students eligible for testing.The percent of total population exempted from testing.The percent of eligible students tested in each contentarea.

The results in Appendix K illustrate that participation rates by schooldistrict on the eighth - grade CRT were quite high, with only a few exceptions.

APPENDIX A

Grade Eight Mathematics Objectives

27

19

Grade Eight Mathematics Objectives

The 36 objectives of the eighth grade mathematics test are listed below. There arefour test items for each objective.

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS (44)

1. Order fractions.

2. Order decimals.

3. Round whole numbers.

4. Round decimals to the nearest whole number, tenth, and hundredth.

5. Multiply and divide whole numbers and decimals by by 10, 100, and 1000.

6. Identify fractions, decimals, and percents from pictorial representations.

7. Convert fractions to decimals and vice versa.

8. Convert fractions and decimals to percents and vice versa.

9. Identify points on number lines, scales, and grids.

10. Identify ratios and fractional parts from given data.

11. Identify an appropriate procedure for making estimates with decimals andfractions.

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS (40)

12. Add and subtract whole numbers less than 10,000.

13. Multiply and divide 2- and 3-digit whole numbers by 1- and 2-digit numbers.

14. Add and subtract decimals (to hundredths) in horizontal form.

15. Identify the correct placement of the decimal point in multiplication anddivision of decimals.

16. Add and subtract fractions and mixed numbers.

17. Multiply fractions and mixed numbers.

18. Determine the percent of a number.

19. Estimate sums and differences of whole numbers and decimals includingmaking change.

20. Estimate products and quotients of whole numbers and decimals.

21. Estimate fractional parts and percents of whole umbers and money amounts.

-20- 28

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPLICATIONS (with calculation available) (40)

22. Compute sums, differences, products, and quotients using a calculator.

23. Interpret graphs, tables and charts.

24. Solve 1- and 2-step problems involving whole numbers and decimalsincluding averaging.

25. Solve 1- and 2-step problems involving fractions.

26. Solve problems involving measurement.

27. Salve problems involving elementary probability.

28. Estimate a reasonable answer to a given problem.

29. Solve problems with extraneous information.

30. Identify needed information in problem situations.

31. Solve process problems involving the organization of data.

MEASUREMENT /GEOMETRY (20)

32. Identify figures using geometric terms.

33. Measure and determine perimeters and areas.

34. Estimate lengths, areas, volumes, and angle measures.

35. Select appropriate metric or customary units and measures.

36. Make measurement conversions within systems.

Performance on all 36 math objectives are reported at the student, classroom,school, district and state levels.

(#) Number of items for each content area.

29

-21-

7t..; 7'7 '"' "---- -----------------..------...............................,......................-,-................,...-......-.

.......IV,

i,--

''',;-tp

,.,"''''

A

t

APPENDIX B

RP,.......0

Grade Eight Language Arts Objectives

-23-

30

Grade Eight Language Arts Objectives

There are eleven language arts objectives and two holistic measures, one forreading and one for writing, within the eighth grade language arts test.

Writing Mechanics (39)

1. Capitalization and Punctuation (12)2. Spelling (8)3. Agreement (15)4. Tone (4)

Study

5. Locating Information (12)6. Notetaking and Outlining (4)

Listening Comprehension (20)

7. Literal (4)8. Inferential & Evaluative (16)

Reading Comprehension (36)

9. Literal (8)10. Inferential (14)11. Evaluative (14)

Degrees of Reading Power (77)

Writing Sample (1)

Holistic scoring provided for all students. Analytic scoringprovided for students who score below the remedial standard of 4(on a scale of 2-8).

Performance on all eleven Language Arts objectives, the Degrees of ReadingPower, and. the Writing Sample is reported at the student, classroom, school,district and state levels.

(#)Number of items for each content area or objective.

31

, APPENDIX C

Remedial (Grant) StandardSetting Process

32

Remedial (Grant) Standard-Setting Process

Background

There are several acceptable strategies for setting standards oncriterion-referenced tests. Each of the proposed methods has one or moreunique characteristics. One common element to the various methods is thatthey all offer to the individuals who are setting the standards some processwhich reduces the arbitrariness of the resulting standard. Different methodsaccomplish this in different ways. All methods systematize the standard-setting process so that the result accurately reflects the collective informedjudgment of those setting the standard.

Types of Standard-Setting Methods

Standard-setting methods can generally be categorized into three types: testquestion review, individual performance review and group performance review.Test question review methods specify a procedure for standard setters to

'-------e-zeutil-re-Gash-tes..t.4111.ation and make a judgment about that question. Forexample, standard setters 'MigfiE- be asked to rate the difficulty or theimportance of each question. These judgments are then combined mathematicallyto produce a standard. Individual performance review methods also requirestandard setters to make judgments, but the judgments are made on the basis ofexamining data that indicate how well individual students perform on testitems. These data may be based on actual pilot test results or projectedresults using mathematical theories. In this method, additional studentinformation, such as grades, may also be used to inform the standard setters.Group performance review methods provide for judgments to be made based on theperformance of a reference group of students. That is, standard settersreview the group performance and make a determination where the standardshould be set based on the group results.

Selection of a Standard-Setting Method

Several factors affect the choice of a particular standard-setting method.The type of test is one consideration. For example, some methods are onlyappropriate for multiple choice questions or for single correct answerquestions while other methods are more flexible. For example, timeconstraints are a consideration if student performance data are necessary. In

this case, a pilot test must be conducted and the test results must beanalyzed prior to setting the standards. Another consideration is therelative importance of the decisions that will be made on the basis of thestandard. For example, a classroom test affecting only a few students wouldnot require as stringent a procedure as would a statewide test determiningwhether a student is allowed to graduate from high school. Other relevantfactors include the number of test items, permanence of the standard, purposeof the test, and the extent of available financial and other resources tosupport the standard-setting process.

-26-33

On February 4, 1985, the Mastery Test Psychometrics Committee met to considerthe issue of standard-setting procedures and voted unanimously to approve thefollowing proposal.

A PROPOSAL FOR SETTING THE REMEDIAL STANDARDS ON THE CONNECTICUT MLSTERY TESTS

1. Two standard-setting committees will be created: one for mathematics andone for reading and writing..

2. This description of a minimally proficient student will be given to eachof the committees:

Imagine a student who is just proficient enough in reading, writing,or mathematics to successfully participate in his/her regulareighth-grade coursework.

3.A In mathematics, an adaptation of the Angoff procedure will be used. Thecommittee will be provided with each item appearing on one form of themathematics test. The committee will be given the following directions:

Consider a group of 100 of these students who are just proficientenough to be successful in regular eighth-grade coursework. How manyof them would be expected to correctly answer each of the questions.

The committee will rate each item. The committee will then be given theopportunity to discuss their rating of each item. Sample pilot data willbe presented. Committee members will be given the opportunity to adjusttheir item ratings. The item ratings will then be ave-...aged in accordancewith the Angoff procedure in order to produce a recommended test standard.

3.B In reading, the committee will review and discuss each passage of theDegrees of Reading Power (DRP) test. Student performance data will bepresented. The committee will consider the reading difficulty that shouldbe expected of a student at the grade level being tested. The committeemembers will identify the passage that has the appropriate level ofreading difficulty consistent with the above description of a minimallyproficient student.

3.0 In writing, the committee will read four sample essays. These essays willhave been prescored holistically (on a scale from 2 to 8) in order to rankthe quality of the essays. Committee members will classify essays intoone of three categories: 1) definitely NOT proficient, 2) borderline, and3) definitely proficient. These classifications will be discussed inlight of the holistic scores. The committee will then classifyapproximately twenty-five additional essays. The essay ratings will bediscussed in the same manner as the original four essays. When all essayshave been discussed, the essays which fell in the borderline category willbe focused upon to determine the standard. The committee will determinewhere among the borderline essays, the standard should be established.

4. The standards recommended in step 3 will be presented to the Mastery TestImplementation Advisory Committee for discussion and action.

-27-34

Connecticut's Strategy

Several steps were employed to create an acceptable and valid test standardfor Connecticut tests. Initially, a separate standard-setting committee wasconvened for each test on which standards are to be set. Individuals werechosen to serve as members on the committee on the basis of their familiaritywith the area being assessed and the nature of the examinees. One source of

such members is the test content committees related to the project. Forexample, members of the Mathematics Committee were represented on thecommittee setting standards for the mathematics mastery test.

The actual procedures used to set standards were an adaptation of a methodproposed by William Angoff (1970). This test question review method requiredmembers of a standard-setting committee to estimate the probability that aquestion would be correctly answered by examinees who possess no more than theminimally acceptable knowledge or skill in the areas being assessed. Standardsetters then reviewed pilot test data for sample items as further evidence ofthe appropriateness of the judgments being made. The original probabilityestimates assigned to each test question were reviewed and adjustments made bythe standard setters. The final individual item probabilities were summed toyield a suggested test standard for each member of the committee. The

suggested standards were averaged across members of the committee to producethe recommended test standard.

The recommended test standard was presentedImplementation Advisory Committee and the State

In mid- March, Mathematics and Language Artsmet to set the remedial standards for the Gradefollowing information summarized the results ofactivities conducted by CSDE staff:

to the Mastery TestBoard of Education.

Standard-Setting CommitteesEight Mastery Test. Thethe standard-setting

I. Mathematics (144 item test)

Using the procedures previously outlined, the standard setters rated each itemand considered the pilot data. Committee members discussed items and weregiven the opportunity to adjust their initial ratings. The final ratings wereaveraged to produce a remedial standard. It is recommended that a raw scoreof 79 be the remedial mathematics standard. Below is a summary of the ratings.

Procedure 1! Judges Range % Mean % Correct Raw Score

Angoff 20 25.7-67.7 54

II. Reading (Degrees of Reading Power, 77 item test)

78

Standard setters used two procedures to establish a remedial readingstandard. First, they examined the passages in the Degrees of Reading Power(DRP) test, asking themselves which passage is too difficult for the studentwho is just proficient enough to successfully participate in eighth-gradecoursework. Discussion occurred throughout this selection process.

Second, they examined textbooks which are typically used in grades 7 and 8and selected those textbooks which a minimally proficient student would not beexpected to read in order to successfully participate in eighth -gradecoursework. Discussion occurred throughout this selection process.

The average readability values of the selected passages and textbooks andthe pilot test data were then revealed to the standard setters. The standardsetters discussed the readability values and the pilot test data andrecommended the DRP unit score of 55 as the remedial standard. The standardwas accepted by the State Board of Education at the 80% comprehension level.Below is a summary of the ratings.

Readability RecommendedProcedure # Judges Range Remedial Standard

A. Test Passage Review 26 53-62 DRP Units

B. Textbook Review 26 48-60 DRP Units

III. Writing (45 minute writing sample)

55 DRP Units

Using the procedure previously outlined, standard setters read and rated 21essays written to a persuasive prompt and 21 essays written to an expositoryprompt. After discussions and final ratings, the holistic scores for thepapers were revealed to the group. The committee then discussed theappropriate remedial writing standard in light of the degree to which theirratings matched the holistic scores. It was the recommendation of thecommittee that a holistic writing score )f 4 be used as the remedial writingstandard. Below is a summary of the ratings.

PERSUASIVE PROMPTRating After Discussion

Holistic

Score

DefinitelyNOT Proficient Borderline

DefinitelyProficient

2 100% 0% 0%

3 69% 0% 31%4 27% 1% 72%5 0% 0% 100%6 6% 0% 94%7 1% 0% 99%8 0% 0% 100%

EXPOSITORY PROMPTRating After Discussion

HolisticScore

DefinitelyNOT Proficient Borderline

DefinitelyProficient

2 100% 0% 0%3 99% 0% 1%4 17% 1% 82%5 22% 0% 78%6 0% 0% 100%7 0% 0% 100%8 0% 0% 100%

-29- 36

LANGUAGE ARTS STANDARD-SETTING COMMITTEE

Dell Britt, Newtown Public SchoolsFred Brucoli, New London Public Schools'Patricia Dobson, Stafford Public SchoolsDonald Falcetti, Litchfield Public SchoolsBill Farr; Bolton Public SchoolsJames Foley, Waterbury Public SchoolsDorothy French, Litchfield Public SchoolsMarguerite Fuller, Bridgeport Public SchoolsSara Godek, Stafford Public SchoolsNina Grecenko, Newtown Public SchoolsMary, Haylon, Hartford Public SchoolsKaren Karcheski, Danbury Public SchoolsJean Klein, Newtown Public SchoolsMark Kristoff, New London Public SchoolsThomas Lane, Old Saybrook Public SchoolsLucretia Leaves,. Hartford Public SchoolsEdward Moore, Danbury Public SchoolsMary Murray, Putnam Public SchoolsDick Nelson, Old Saybrook Public SchoolsOlive S. Niles, East Hartford Public SchoolsAnne L. Rash, Bolton Public SchoolsBernice Wagge, Waterbury Public SchoolsMary Wilson, Hartford Public SchoolsBarbara Zamagni, Putnam Public SchoolsRobe*- ;Cinder, CT State Department of EducationMary Weinland, CT State Department of Education

MATHEMATICS STANDARD-SETTING COMMITTEE

Barbara Bailey, New Haven Public SchoolsPat Banning, Windham Public SchoolsGeorge Caouette, Manchester Public SchoolsPearl Caouette, Manchester Public SchoolsTony Ditrio, Norwalk Public SchoolsDon Flis, West Hartford Public SchoolsMarian Frascino, Norwalk Public SchoolsCharles Framularo, Bridgeport Public SchoolsSheryl Hershonick, New Haven Public SchoolsMable McCarthy, Middletown Public SchoolsMichele Nahas, Windham Public SchoolsJudy Narveson, Farmington Public SchoolsMary Ann Papa, West Hartford Public SchoolsJim Pinto, Bloomfield Public SchoolsHelen Prescitt, Ashford Public SchoolsDolores Vecchiarelli, Westport Public SchoolsSylvia Webb, Middletown Public SchoolsFrank Whittaker, Bridgeport Public SchoolsBetsy Carter, CT State Department of EducationSteve Leinwand, CT State Department of Education

APPENDIX D

Marker Papers for Holistic Scoring

3138

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE II WRITING SAMPLE

I, .. Al ' f I al ts 41 MI V 4I

OB:hi I r A 0 ; litLiA0 l 1 IWO nbC114 (o r1±(Cif 10 ..YY1/111. nfrA i -.114 risuicti 1,-..(e. iNvvroo.1%. Am. . ". . t. 1 -,

ctIciCPoLt.i.QtecLikintrizl______41.0,1 40-irer A. -ika.4-9 Ocin Ax,

.Cat b A 0_161.4711 -1. t k 1 A i i (1 1ff 1 LP+...41.P ..2S

as A/ /a I a 5 lb

4 5. P ... g. z . , I Al S II I 4 Ise4. 4 I le 0 II ii. $ 2 6 I

III; .

-A "tkory.1 lerojita J iliAlic l'bif rIfYIdaad A.CA04,.-MA Arial/ .1.1,2 21)111Ti :3"24 -4,\ fillx10,

IS.. .. - ..... ... .. . ,....,1.8. ' . law ail 1_11.&jL *ad ,. Jr '10'A')sP.A.1

Tr 12 pionm juidie P. ri 44.rt-/

1 ... . S.. A .- 1 a a

-Krit rio to 7,01- kcni me J 0 i11.43iaDQI riJiJ,fr._I a A .10 . . . A i a Mel

fhAzb2,i No-ii-A; PcL.caA1.2__±3._& Ntrus,-,i .4h-tu4\ Aloll cp IiicAA Loo =s1 .6rn ...1.-4 AA,

ALts,c2aictiLect 3 4.6)tit-, )1stitirtri44-km -*Mf., SUA. s/nc;m 0 C-tL4J-4 -to4L4.24a____Etmizab:ce_____000.,d <4)

OscelLth.duLd c-k-A-fAr A-0 JJ5b .

Sent, Point; I

There is cies: Lwidence this t:udent saw the prompt: however. the response is a'discussion of an election. There is no support of a single candidate.

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE S WRITING SAMPLE IIII/ /

441 Afi e I 6 . f ..Ar af, Re. ...'VAINIP/72640k

I ...: .44. r ... .4 ... ?. I ... 4- ' aI [ i - / orG ./ . ..i , ... /ad ... EP ii......:...-... 4...

-11114era.. / , OM I IN I I I 11121 III VIP . 4 4 aim/

A/ ' /A', O .r . -.a. '

, ' '. 0'G It

m. at, . ..:.i,. sr - as.' .02.4 ' . ...

MINITd A- 1 . . *oat ... .. ....-

4116.4. .... la .0..4Y

it AriPLAmar....,.... ,f...

.5 (57 -7-1,,,7- n-zt ,t,,,,,eile Gt4cArft1

I7 1I ./:, , ray erv V-4.,(4

Score Point: 1

This response is an attempt to respond to the task. but there

is no sustained discourse. It reads like an outline of a speech.

Additional clarification or some transitional linking it needed

for a nigher score.

40

CONNECTICUT L:ASTERY TEST GRADE t WRITING SAMPLE =EEO

AL 20 Arki,.e a toHA ctize

e

A'

I /

JAWINFAIS/ I '

rfi .17.001.-1rAlI,.

Score Point: 2

Although this paper has no more information than the previous

paper, it has the needed transitions which create sustained

discourse.

41

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE WRITING SAMPLE

81

1519161s-111

f1146 0 tRUYJR /..keriAteil AO_rti"d" AfttA,AU.fri r oc-utet./k4.,L,

t u p -IL7

c.4 e" ..A..q..eOLVA,

CAScore Point: 2

This response has a number of points. Most are vague, but

give his hardest and a late bus have some clarification.

43

boo

.34 \

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE

Score Point

WRITING SAMPLE 11111121RE

There are a number otc poaints. citligvibl:nictlecajoLanflag!i:b !:31s,lebaltirle the lisA:4e1 !weds

enhancesdeiail;* for 4

istrt.geariv,tEllisr!ItipefiLic:r: i2hLiner sco . r-nr lilll K eI.ukcii to 0 o wit'ria7t- riiii--.e . He will

LiLic, hie 54. in Someone nd4- ell.9r+0 . u n ir 4frn hte lIth cA- ii- is SG veior A e u.,Ill 10

-1-i ,y1 -or s .1 Onii 3" . rI.1_c; PM t71 el fl d POO

. . -I 0 , +1 a .0.

.1i _kr- evPrsjoriP h ke ever. , , .... , - . hi 7 ,

1 4 A F.0 I 1 S. I 0 I a I, a r L. I - e 4 I

I like ,Cool- ha/1ft C I d CII:,r2r4,4 elf., .

fi PI Ott ST)r 1- 4/*1 e a t7r)yeyjh ,pp 'JOU Ay 4.1-61-e- A t.,ii ccor Erknnl concill

, I ill .,. 1e.(ultra a rejq r-I0 ;173 rto p0 ) u.,i4-4. arier.5,flinLa I & tiP 1S kJ o-te d h e to; // ne74- 6-e 04 44-n ritai nip WM A P 0 a.9ir,74,....rspek iipicr

ipr, Or r n r i v sy ,1 brs nr- ., I- 4.9 rila g;ltr.r.t.. or 11,-,,4 e Ifit,s. -4-4, liar,i I I s . - N II I /

il e Ca 0 4 o -1.-1,k+_ k

S-0 fr. on r n s f IIA . I . .

I

44

r

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE 8 WRITING SAMPLE

.c

I lbozoAl :-.1.2._ to..c 9. _ cs.st. t kt, Q te -q,m.c.

k Is. kK.\ C.-r-,M\ C-: \ 4._ ?C. 0 ci.N\.) .

... C V . ) ' 7:\

o capfZ:S. \cl. .

..-. C\ .0 0 .4C:>C\ V,1\e cr. C..- 2,..tti jCt1 ca S l_<..C.OSS ct.,)lky? .T,k:!,

enr ,..:k1,-. se:A..., . C.X.,ik csc...

, cre.`c.. \-4 cA,_ c,.c. 1,:,,ss .. \ . -- A k cs . 1k 4.,

,it. -ki.Cry. A es. CN.. If\ ALO. 4,.... .-\. ec.ek\k-I.,"\ 4-, se,\, 1,4 \ AP.-.1 t tri7c,a IIA) 0..1 OM_ %1N, \)(111./.A.. -ki Si

\,f c,S Irc\)1.2b... N .-...-\ z,11), a 1 1t( 11A %A1 cks-\\AA Vco.,,J, \ C\ LO C \ n c<CJC, ,z,t,..) 4-1-

c4CAS 4 c. P -N. r.:,\U ...5

1: ' c ccc c-

-k...c .\ hit_ own,..,(0 Scing,I.k -L.

I C. .

N.0 %.,. A ,..c \N:lw.? k,x,_ 4 -L tckc_1( bp r.,.\\ 1-k 01

sc., -A-hc..-k Q.s...c-V. pc-Act. P,N 't. <Aloe 2 Its. ,c:. 9,...).41,3\9_ . 11. 'iS acsk.oA iq,,c:&)s.

Q.-0... ,..\ -)...,..,f -V, -Q t-Nt__.

o ksz._,

Score Point: 3

This is a low 3. It is one main point--solve problems. This point hasadditional supportinc detail. The response is fluent ad controlled

45

46

WRITING SAMPLE

lit_sp4JI ry-my-Lii\A-to. fl)arsn_

ib a4-Lti cy& Yo\ )11 A J)

f3h-2 rito CUICO.k- q-41.)

ak.

5c1->ci-1sncoi t 4-hit,Le t LA r) 1,--1kye

P0 ia CLUN:ry. Alb .. AI

-1A./...1

setm -1-c)

Sh 4 k (9, wiso 441 -In.1)4-LA

p) A i oct 3f V L"). f wo316.0 _Lon 44.L4_

t 4-p 1 cry3 if) up

INA I. Oa ir

aflet).(1.0../ne 1.4 CYnca I

OSA a02 A MI&

sAbfabdk._ 1_11,1 L a : la

is 411LAN

p

. 5VNst_ Czisnpig_r).+. 2 AI.

.

hC1.--9-6- air& h-).fahsz

.A1

OTT_

0A-LLAO 5:r1. -5- \-1/4 )ni-tn-1- Cc. o'Ne

Score Point: 3

This response has a number of points. Clarifirartnn,i. repetitious. There is some additional supporting details, and

the response is controlled.

47

comecncl.rr MASTERY TEST GRADE $ MMHG SAMPLE

63 a

ot9 a{OUU9ill2tial&41"1"a

% La e ft

r*-A OP ;et qN; 24,10 0. 1.1 o%

I I.6 o.

\AI A o. &If

/oz.. .6. .;

mr-ft;to 3v,A. tofienpfi_k_, Ap".4.100t,..$A-sp 4A.4 xekok tor.0

.6 % %:

kat 1/,

urnle".49(.1(1:,!Vilk,ocitOilk,

.178,

ter r_ree,

Ad .0I !If '

-14141.--411kea---12e-mcauAre'n _tkriii.e,

Am/1'n_

48

14...!:;

tt

. ' tor

Mid A as Ag

.131new KkaLaireit .1,4..W.And1/ in 'v./Chid / LAI

/AglL

Score Point: 3

o , 1 bp Opin .

This response has numerous points -- some are clarified and

some hate supporting detail. It is a "3" because of the list-like

quality, the repetition, and the lack of overall' control.

49

.a .01 Allf41 all all 111.ILII-SL 41 lb III

.g.. 6 ta A a *OM of WE

a

A A a a &e .

A 116 I III Mgt A. 4a-.. AA_ oda _,.7. a. 1

0.11 IA 1 ' C .4 . lii .A2 O. e t A .. Jai,

- a... as I 4 Alf A a a a Ada O. 0

a. a P I M ,Is Alla.. 6 a In.lel

/6 a ,! . ... oa A a A a A . A la P. a. fa "Pa 0. .11 0 .a .a - a 0.A A a.iMPWr; WI Ali OS 4 at 4 Si f lie 1 tit 0. a 10. ea.Is

a an

( .Ili la 0.". 6 Air, .01 Al as 40 I el. l - 4 ..:. -.. ... ....:-. .A P. 9121111 I . % 116A 611, Asa a' ..4 a a ...I... qt, 66, _66 .. la

6... . Z IAA AA MO f II I. s ....: LA .0 A I . : .A.- . 1 t Plik . ..L. 1.1..I .... a A

AAA 411Aa Jib lb ma . an a P is.....ta4 i at Co L.. A G.-a.....a.. a 4..._ A A 4 1 lb KS Alb .'"...I% . .0 g IP la) Ila .1111 & ° la AI VP., . !AA a i a a a .... 11704,-

. .... a.alas /aka .V. l1 ab 411L a .. i a am ea a AUL .a.........5. . al O.% . !..11 a 41 ..a. _a a A At.' .. ..! 18 ..!. . LOP l.:- Arm ...A .

VPL. la 11.. . :.n .. AAA Par 1 ilil L ... - ._:'S_ 4. Ia. 0 .4. aa .... I'M .r...... ..

4110

A . 1 . I IAl i t 'te o w d i a l P a . .01 a . .66 A . 0214 L , - 4 . 6 a. a. . ' 'APAM!" . ...

a A a . ' .1 . *2 AA. inDA It.. ... da A all! alt .4' ar A 41`0.4

111 MO a 4 e. I. .11_1/0 , IIPAXV. 4 .1.,.p

I...* II. ,... . . 4.1 0: Ea lia a a .......w. . If 114 . 4. ... iS a .AA. ll- 16

..I. a la A Sala. a a ' _ef..aa ca. .1. . 4 I a A ol . Las ra .1.m .. .. ... to ay. 44 a..

I 1141-L12- & ai 1 I a.... -AAA° ab . All A A.A a 4.., .41,

a.. aillia

.!.:..k. 1 .4l 1 II IA AII1 I .6i4 . I A .11b

I AC r *MP.. 41 ii., IIII i I. k/0.0._ a 11. -.

IIIt Aa le !..k. ALA., A A.A."111'k ........

t L. .l%

41 . IEr6216,

. El It 9_

L.

CCC

C

CONNECTICUT MAITENY TEST GRADE I WRITING MAPLE

esENNIO

14r /Ir. flat n4, a."- t-, t> 1.. tke> 0,11

... " a . 11171 a A - *Ile 11° oil kn,, 4k scl,,,,,/ ,re 312 //Ir.

fintie C 6.tniS ,11P CP C' its 11,3=___raf.:÷ ' ._,A4 un-li I rx, r1I- rev- 1,4nc. !..(-46 'Je fea4ir..171e Le 4, 1.t* c.IvArocct

fNeNt. 1 niA ;5 LAY 7.-- alvt AriA;PII44+3_,XILD

law ft' 01 . .i 1 . 1 Al_I .1. r D- ° I i

reVS-7,teri:Ti tie -Ltt'A tAc He_ e-co, rnoice Aese chorseIt .,

- .. .- .,.. .....( a. AI iii at -WY!" 4. kr,. t. ;.P yc 4 f c y i- pet'S cm

. -4

Le ,,,A. & 41:c?, ,es Ay. ),,,e -1-ise.. e fp ec ...-fs1 ,

Ace L t kii A Fret/A. tji- t,.+' .., 11 A,getkr--' oreL;1 ly. aj :,-.

ryI -0- ka-mra DA,

14 14,A,' 7,14E. ,In bla represefg-i,ve Prtpa.Arek_ riNtiqs tro!..e)rr. Tk ad (Sc' , , ki. ,.._,,t. A tice,

'hp kto( o Z-1..;.c- ,*,, r. /ch.. 11P 1 rwkL ,c t. IA Ur .h 14 1i.e otcifyri- 1- di -ay., 4 11C-

47", LC ei le6rkfc lle: fil:rfk ZIA, A m'--4c'ecksr.... ic 4? 'Ai!c be C" Adf -0,6' Zi,fit'rt-tk,f9y T./1 AP kAms_A ht_ can ha) -Me-, ,

Mall- k p et. Clarne l't.c.:4:

. . a _giA.er Li, 441

sztaZattaLE, 6 A A . c 414ti c ty j,-1-0: 4-, ri: 1". )t,-,_,

52

,

4.1 ... A IL a. Aft .I I ..,

1,1 Lk A 0.- A /. A ...

fif. 1710 A..J5ca, siAprti r,,nr_:/ IV0_5 1:Je Ls-l-a.+1," l'gte 111. T akfurly Tht_31:1 c,,, Qd- .1 iel-1 - A Ill a.- ... I.. . .. ill A . st

LQ4:2M be//c.4Ve . A ach . a

44.Y, 1114.

,A ..A. 4. ;AIL (nA0S firMel- nn A nodel cpv }J Ft c...,), . swak L.4 Ae

7 I

. . _ :. .*,* " - / Lk S. S ...or , 1

4.6 PeA Q..7 1,,c..: )Ertc if, (*.KAT 54A4 Pik. A; C.ST

el ,

Cc k..4" Pet 11._&4-:. r,4- 4e,c, say 1-Ir i.s ,,17 - :,

1r I. )4 cc'. o. c f+p,A ,"roaicm .4- Iii .SCIADni Ap4 i ,%... 7 ....) .

1a1

'' a

. . 0 a e ,11C 110 .t. . * 4111. I ii. 4 ...

Ii.... Litz, I 11<ca takz,- -kc pvi. '' their/ f:S.Ile- a,t. ctm? t c 4. , ',tit.- -A. c-, 14,11.1110" g la

pik,e. t4 et..e.i rc ' f a r IT% ie1

T rr: nA% .:5. 40 I.L b ,--

..12,1 rn r crm.ac II m."01 Art: T e y 34,- . , IQ 4:,-. ,

RV' ;ft A e -r1 .c1 ri 1505-,-...ctlf,:ei-1-

, . % ., 4 .

. Le . .1 a

k (-AC cl' 1h',, :..4--,),-L,,/

Score Point: 4

This response has a number of points, several of which have

additional supporting derail. 7.* response is organized and conrrolled.

53

APPENDIX E

Analytic Rating Guide and Marker Papers for Analytic Scoring

GRADE EIGHT ANALYTIC RATING GUIDE

FOCUS: How effectively does the writer unify the paper by a dominant topic?

1 = switches and/or drifts frequently from the dominant topic2 = switches and/or drifts somewhat from the dominant topic3 = stays on topic throughout the response

ORGANIZATION: Is there a plan that clearlybeginning to the end of the response and is

1 = no discernible plan2 = inferable plan and/or discernible

present

3 = controlled, logical sequence with a clear plan

governs the sequence from thethe plan effectively signaled?

sequence; some signals may be

SUPPORT /ELABORATION: To what extent is the narrative developed by detailsthat describe and explain the narrative elements (character, action, andsetting)?

1 = vague or sketchy details that add little to the clarity of theresponse or specific details but too few to be called list-like

2 = details that are clear and specific but are list-like, or uneven, ornot developed

3 = well-developed details that enhance the clarity of the response

- SENTENCE FORMATION: Are sentences correctly formed?

1 = many run-ons, "on-and -ons," fragments, and/or awkwardconstructions - -may cause confusion

2 = some run-ons, "on-and -ons," fragments, and/or awkwardconstructions - -may cause confusion

3 = few errors and/or awkward constructions - -no confusion

MECHANICS: To what extent does the student use the conventions of standardwritten English (e.g. spelling, usage, capitalization, punctuation)?

1 = many errors2 = some errors3 = few errors

55

-42-

I. . a La

bhh hectie I 11.thk ke. \4411390.A______

rtier_eSthil* -FK dr,cs He vh4v4 1.,,c>s.k

Skr th,r,.1 Vie how urli- ;c, Tih5 01e, 'on II. f

SiliAf vit. CarthCi I CA& '/o0 rioN5 4 cur rt6eS

;% Tr h., Cr;hr:c, . 1-1 e Wcn6 Vote. eor more dwi;c4,

GNI a cnftcr sv,c)tie prehg-tot6 pics,e . vote -GT _IiNh

Ow% d Iho.ck Ns yec..y- cA 50o (-1 fahe .

Analytic Score Point?

Focus: 3

OreanizatiOn: 2

Support/Elaboration: 1

-Sentence Formation: 3

',-17hanics: I%....7

.4,9 14

JEINOWIPPIAMMIMENNIET . L.5 11.. . . A I . . ....: -

1.11111.11111111kiliMPIWIEN Mt A

I i n Atemarnmssigswanstmenimaws.isirgruswwas

:;,4=';',

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TEST GRADE I WRITING SAMPLE

58

rn

_A04.31k9cuni- Perult Wd vtltaig0 so

to

..1114_,&1_4;44,1_14.4.3...Z.CALE4U1PaL4

Allaalala0.1fAteg.4.L+14.1MICLA44C1,1212:14,

44..

qmi:1454&"41-

Arslyt c Score Points

Focus: 3

Organization: 1


Sentence Formation: 3

Mechanics: 2

,

Ca/ opt or1ter4

Si ik .111.

Pee) cfonoii

tei i .0.t1r1 j,0Q.. ball 1 It _ S.. Iv a All

.4(sin perpu_ V-Icarc-i lc/Kryx)1'(1e, trii 13n

.yryeir> A J311 ,(4

a Iib.i a..k

'4 tI Abi AWL 411o.

Analytic Score Points

Focus: 3

Organization: 2


Sentence Formation: 1

Mechanics: 2

59

2

0

--4:

41

111

41

...

44

-

..

1

...

.

1

IIII-

-

a

41

I

.....an

eI

1111

4

11111.

.

.4NI

":I

11

't

a

Il:

IT

IN

1.9

'

- i

ail

qi,

Ira

..

41

111.

4fiS.

,

- ,

.

1

..- 1

1

gio:..

%

i4

4

1

'

- ,

4

It

I

Il

,

....

...

.d

.

'I

'I

1,

.. '

- .

Il

I

4

4

IO.

' I

I

I

i

ql411.

p

...

0c

V)

u...4.>,

.

.4to

...e

.

.

..

I.

c...

at

e4

..1,

isc.,.cl'

.-,1;1

APPENDIX F

Sample Grade Eight Mastery Test Score Reports

o Class Diagnostic Report- Mathematics

o School by Class Report- Mathematics

o District by School Report- Mathematics

o Class Diagnostic Report- Language Arts

o School by Class Report- Language Arty,

o District by School Report- Language Arts

o Parent/Student Diagnostic Report

6147

CT T STI c ; CLASS DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATENUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED:

NUMBER OF STUDENTS NEEDINGFURTHER DIAGNOSIS

IN MATHEMATICS:

MATHEMATICS OBJECTIVES TESTED

MASTERYCRITERIA# OF ITEMSCORRECT

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS1. ORDER FRACTIONS2. ORDER DECIMALS3. ROUND WHOLE NUMBERS4. ROUND DECIMALS5. MULT/DIV WHOLE ti'S & DEC. BY 10, 100, 10008. IDENTIFY FRACTIONS, DEC., %'S FROM PICTURES7. CONVERT FRACTIONS DECIMALS8. CONVERT FRACTIONS/DECIMALS PERCENTS9. IDENTIFY PTS. ON NUMBER LINES, SCALES, GRIDS

10. IDENTIFY RATIOS AND FRACTIONAL PARTS11. IDENTIFY PROCEDURE FOR FRAC/DEC. ESTIMATION

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS12. ADD AND SUBTRACT WHOLE NUMBERS13. MULTIPLY AND DIVIDE WHOLE NUMBERS14. ADD AND SUBTRACT CECIMALS15. ID CORRECT DECIMAL P T IN PROD/QUOT OF DECIMALS18. ADD/SUIr:LACT FRACTIONS AND MIXED NUMBERS17. MULTIPLY FRACTIONS AND MIXED NUMBERS18. DETERMINE PERCENT OF A NUMBER19. ESTIMATE SUUS/DIFFS. OF WHOLE #'S AND DECIMALS20. ESTIMATE PRCOMUOT OF WHOLE ti'S AND DECIMALS21, ESTIMATE FRACTIONAL PARTS/%'S OF WHOLE IrS

3 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 4SOF 43 OF 43 OF 4

SEE MATHEMATICS PART 2 FOR OBJECTIVES 22-36 AND SUMMARY TOTALS.

MATHEMATICS PART 1 OF 2

PAGE

NUMBER/PERCENTOF STUDENTS

MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICT

/ %

INDICATES A SCO;S. BELOW THE REMEDIAL STANDARD.THIS STUDENT MUST RECE..E FURTHER DIAGNOSIS.

COPYRIGHT 0 MS BY CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

0 CLASS DIAGNOS TIC REPORT MATHEMATICS PART 2 OF2

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATE:NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED:


IN MATHEMATICS:

PAGE


MASTERING EACH OBJECTWEMASTCRYCRITERIA7,, OFCORRECTS

CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICT

MATHEMATICS OBJECTIVES TESTED. /2/2_

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPLICATIONS22. ADD/SUBTRAULT/DIV WITH A CALCULATOR23. INTERPRET GRAPHS, TABLES AND CHARTS24. SOLVE 1-AND 2-STEP PROBSWHOLE WS & DEC.25. SOLVE 1-AND 2-STEP PROBLEMS - FRACTIONS28. SOLVE PROBLEMS INVOLVING MEASUREMENT27. SOLVE PROBS. INVOLVING ELEM. PROBABILITY28. ESTIMATE A REASONABLE ANSWER29. SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION30. IDENTIFY NEEDED INFORMATION IN PROBLEMS31. SOLVE PROCESS PROBLEMS - ORGANIZING DATA

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY32. IDENTIFY FIGURES USING GEOMETRIC TERMS33. MEASURE AND DETERMINE PERIMETERS AND AREAS34. ESTIMATE LENGTWAREANOLUME/ANGLE MEASURE35. SELECT APPROPRIATE METRIC/CUSTOMARY UNIT38. MAKE MEASUREMENT CONVERSIONS W/IN SYSTEMS

3 OF 4

3 OF 42 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 4

TOTAL NUMBEI OF OBJECTIVES MASTEREDAVERAGE il OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

NUMBER OF ITEMS CORRECT NUMBER/PERCENT OF STUDENTSBELOW REMEDIAL STANDARD

MATHEMATICS REMEDIAL STANDARD 78 OF 144

INDICATES A SCORE BELOW THE REMEDIAL STANDARDTHIS STUDENT MUST RECEIVE FURTHER DIAGNOSIS.

COPYRIGHT 0 1986 BY CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

65

0293A3

ONNECTICUT MASTERY ES IN PROGRAM SCHOOL BY CLASS REPORTMATHEMATICS PART 1 OF 2

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATE:

SCORES INDICATE NUMBER/PERCENT OFSTUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

PAGE

SCHOOL DISTRICT

NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED

MATHEMATICS OBJECTIVES TESTED MASTERYCRITERIA #1 ' #/ % #/ % # / % #1 % # / % #1 % 111 % # / % # / %

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS1. ORDER FRACTIONSL. ORDER DECIMALS3. ROUND WHOLE NUMBERS4. ROUND DECIMALS5. MULT/DIV WHOLE #'S & DEC. BY 10, 100, 10008. IDENTIFY FRACTIONS. DEC.. WS FROM PICTURES7. CONVERT FRACTIONS - DECIMALS8. CONVERT FRACTIONS/DECIMALS - PERCENTS9. IDENTIFY PTS. ON NUMBER LINES. SCALES. GRIDS10. IDENTIFY RATIOS AND FRACTIONAL PARTS11. IDENTIFY PROCEDURE FOR FRAC/DEC. ESTIMATION

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS12. ADD AND SUBTRACT WHOLE NUMBERS13. MULTIPLY AND DIVIDE WHOLE NUMBERS14. ADD AND SUBTRACT DECIMALS15. ID CORRECT DECIMAL PT IN PROD/QUOT OF DECIMALS16. ADD/SUBTRACT FRACTIONS AND MIXED NUMBERS17. MULTIPLY FRACTIONS MD MIXED NUMBERS18. DETERMINE PERCENT OF A NUMBER19. ESTIMATE SUMS/DIFFS. OF WHOLE srs AND DECIMALS20. ESTIMATE PROD/QUOT OF WHOLE IT'S AND DECIMALS21. ESTIMATE FRACTIONAL PARTS/WS OF WHOLE #'S

. ;;ILLASirWgiidali

3 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 4

'4' RiNklm,k642.44.twAiiitgalltai'aiellagear.. tar ,-- f

SEE MATHEMA "CS PART 2 FOR OBJECTIVES 22-36 AND SUMMARY TOTALS.

'REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 78 OF 144 ITEMS CORRECT COPYRIGHT ID 1986 BY CONNEG i CUT STATE BOARD OF 8 'LIGATION ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PRINTED IN THE U SA

01SCA3

67

SCHOOL BY CLASS REPORTHE TICS PART 2 OF 2

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATE

SCCRES INDIC kTE NUMBER/PERCENT OFSTUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

PAGE

SCHOOL DISTRICT

HU:ABER OF STUDENTS TESTED

MATHEMATICS OBJECTIVES TESTED MASTERYCR i TER iA

3 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 OF 4

3 CF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

# / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # 1 % # 1 %

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPUCATIOHS22. ADD/SUBT/MULT/DIV WITH A CALCULATOR23. INTERPRET GRAPHS, TABLES AND CHARTS24. SOLVE I- AND 2STEP PROBS-WHOLE #5 & DEC.25. SOLVE 1- AND 2STEP PROBLEMS - FRACTIONS28. SOLVE PROBLEMS INVOLVING MEASUREMENT27. SOLVE PROBS. INVOLVING ELEM. PROBABILITY28. ESTIMATE A REASONABLE ANSWER28. SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION30. IDENTIFY NEEDED INFORMATION IN PROBLEMS31. SOLVE PROCESS PROBLEMS - ORGANIZING DATA

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY .

32. IDENTIFY FIGURES USING GEOMETRIC TERMS33. MEASURE AND DETERMINE PERIMETERS AND AREAS34. ESTIMATE LENGTWAREANOLUME/ANGLE MEASURE35. SELECT APPROPRIATE METRIC/CUSTOMARY UNIT38. MAKE MEASUREMENT CONVERSIONS WAN SYSTEMS

AVERAGE NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

NumBEFuPERc;NT OF STUDENTS BELOW HE REMEDIAL STANDARD*

*REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 78 OF 11.1 ITEMS CORRICTCOPYRIGHT T 1988 BY CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PRINTED IN THE U.SA

69

0300A3

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM DISTRICT BY SCHOOL REPORT MATHEMATICS PART 1 OF 2

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATE:


PAGE

DISTRICT

NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED

MATHEMATICS OBJECTIVES TESTED MASTERYCRITERIA

# / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / %

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGSI. ORDER FRACTIONS2. ORDER DECIMALS3. ROUND WHOLE NUMBERS4. ROUND DECIMALS5. MULT/DIVWHOLE #'S & DEC. BY 10, 100, 10006. IDENTIFY FRACTIONS. DEC.. %'S FROM PICTURES7. CONVERT FRACTIONS - DECIMALS8. CONVERT FRACTIONS/DECIMALS - PERCENTS9. IDENTIFY PTS. ON NUMBER LINES, SCALES. GRIDS10. IDENTIFY RATIOS AND FRACTIONAL PARTSII. IDENTIFY PROCEDURE FOR FRAC/DEC. ESTIMATION

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS12. ADD AND SUBTRACT WHOLE NUMBERS13. MULTIPLY AND DIVIDE WHOLE NUMBERS14. ADD AND SUBTRACT DECIMALS15. ID CORRECT DECIMAL PT PROD/QUOT DECIMALS16. ADD/SUB:RACT FRACTIONS AND MIXED NUMBERS17. MULTIPLY FRACTIONS AND MIXED NUMBERS18. DETERMINE PERCENT OF A NUMBER19. ESTIMATE SUMS/DIFFS. OF WHOLE #'S AND DECIMALS20. ESTIMATE PROD/QUOT OF WHOLE #'S AND DECIMALS21. ESTIMATE FRACTIONAL PARTS/%'S OF WHOLE IrS

3 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

AC.4.1Wei..:.:.11.1.?...:-Cir.1...-. .-Y,'it... i.:7:' ;*:::::' 4.t.....:1'..2.. ge.....-' ''.. -.Latiia-lirtr&iltiAda...7:6'..4-';,4.t.iSil[iPit'Xiii:Va.7..i;.:Zia4th'...il..aCii/.:11.2kt.t.'

TOTALS.

:T; iii,"..:4C1..1..V1.6.41?4,4....K.-4.

SEE MATHEMATICS PART 2 FOR OBJECTIVES 22-36 AND SUMMARY

'REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 78 OF 144 ITEMS CORRECT COPYRIGHT 0 198$ BY CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED PRINTED IN THE U.SA.

7071

0302A3

DISTRICT BY SCHOOL REPORTMATHEMATICS PART 2 OF 2

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATE


PAGE

DISTRICT

NWABER OF STUDENTS TESTED

MATHEMATICS OBJECTIVES TESTED TERYMASCRITERIA

# / % # / % # / % If / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / %

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPUCAYIONS22. ADD/SUBT/MULT/DIV WITH A CALCULATOR23. INTERPRET GRAPHS. TABLES AND CHARTS24. SOLVE 1- AND 2-STEP PROBS -WHOLE #5 & DEC.25. SOLVE I- AND 2-STEP PROBLEMS - FRACTIONS28. SOLVE PROBLEMS INVOLVING MFASUREMENT27. SOLVE PROBS. INVOLVING ELEM. PROBABILITY29. ESTIMATE A REASONABLE ANSWER29. SOLVE PROBLEMS WITH EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION30. IDENTIFY NEEDED INFORMATION IN PROBLEMS31. SOLVE PROCESS PROBLEM'S - ORGANIZING DATA

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY32. IDENTIFY FIGURES USING GEOMETRIC TERMS33. MEASURE/DETERMINE PERIMETERS AND ARM.'34. ESTIMATE LENGTWAREANOLUMEPANGLE MEASURE35. SELECT APPROPRIATE METRIC/CUSTOMARY UNIT38. MAKE V 'SURE CONVERSIONS WAN SYSTEMS

..-,..L.t.-t.I.,. 14444 .'.-..'' .. i.!.._..1..Z.17,.;.4, :41...,:;%....:',...eu' E...41.4.

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

3 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 43 OF 4

10;4 ...:;x: ... . ,, 4!../.1. I.:vie . si i...,i., -. ji.K... s. lAts;;a:s. . *.sflsd.-...,%-e.tite, ...;St i 's t.s'ss. s s. :gst-s 4rrs' 'LA. s' ..z--44...:A; v.*1... :2,4. -.::'

AVERAGE NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERE2

HUMBER /PERCENTOF STWERTS BELOW THF,RemENAL, STANDARD'

"REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 73 OF 144 ITEMS CORRECT COPYRIGHT 3) 1936 BY CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVE: PRINTED IN THE USA

72 73

0304A3

I.ONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRA CLASS DIAGNOSTIC REPORTNGUAGE ARTS

GRADE 8 FORM A

TESTING DATE:NUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED:


IN WRITING:IN READING:

PAGE


MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVEMASTERYCRITERIA# OF ITEMSCORRECT

CLASS SCHOOL DISTRICTLANGUAGE ARTS OBJECTIVES TESTED

/ % ü / % , / %

WRITING MECHANICS1. CAPITALIZATION AND PLINCIVATION2. SPELLING3. AGREEMENT (VERB TENSE. SUBJECT/OBJECTNERB.

_ AND PRONOUN REFERENT)4. TONE

STUDY SKILLS5. LOCATING INFORMATION8. NOTETAKING AND OUTLINING

LISTENING COMPREHENSION7. LITERAL8. INFERENTIAL 8, EVALUATIVE

READING COMPREHENSION9. LITERAL

10. INFERENTIAL11. EVALUATIVE

9 OF 12

6 OF 811 OF 15

3 OF 4

9 OF 123 OF 4

3 OF412 OF 16

6 OF 810 OF 1410 OF 14

TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED AVERAGE H OF ORIF,TNES MASTERED

HOLISTIC MEASURES OF WRITING AND READING REMEDIALSTANDARDS

4NUMBER/PERCENT OF STUDENTS

BELOW REMEDIAL STANDARDS

WRITING SAMPLEANALYTIC SCORING INFORMATION**

FOCUS

ORGANIZATIONSUPPORT/ELABORATIONMECHANICSSENTENCE FORMATION

4 OF 8

DEGREES OF READING POWER (DRP)0 55 ORSUNITS

"INDICATES A SCORE BELOW THE REMEDIAL STANDARD. THIS STUDENT MUST RECENE FURTHER DIAGNOSIS COPYRIGHT SD 1986 BY CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION"'ANALYTIC SCORING INFORMATION IS GIVEN ONLY FOR THOSE STUD NTS WHO SCORED BELOW THE REMEDIAL STANDARD. ALL RIGH S RESERVED.

1...NEEDS REMEDIAL ASSISTANCE 2...BORDERLINE PERFORMANCE 3- SATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

750285A3

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM SC' :00L BY CLASS REPORTLANGUAGE ARTS

PAGE-.- .-- - . -.......

TESTING DATE:


SCHOOL DISTRICTNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED

LANGUAGE ARTS OBJECTIVES TESTEDMASTERYCR

# / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % 4, / ,4 # / %

WRITING MECHANICS1. CAPITALIZATION AND PUNCTUATION2. SPELLING3. AGREEMENT (VERB TENSE. SUf3JECT/OBJNERB,

AND PRONOUN REFERENT)4. TONESTUDY SKILLS5. LOCATING INFORMATION8. NOTETAXING AND OUTLININGLISTENING COMPREHENSION7. LITERAL8. INFERENTIAL & EVALUATIVEREADING COMPREHENSION8. LITERAL10. INFERENTIALit EVALUATIVE

9 OF 12

8 OF 811 OF 15

30x4

9 OF 12I.: OF 4

3 OF 412 OF 16

8 OF 810 OF 14

te OF 14

HOLISTICSCORE

4A,Z415441,4&4&.10

# 1 ,4 if/ %

4Z.r.."ait'4:Ac.

r.,,:-

# / %

.ti.l.i..i.' ).1-

oil- .14,4 4...-I.;...U.:;

4.4.Z41Likla

'''A;f*i..:.).:!.+At....1...kik!.+41,a3ib.,.4,14,i,..i,..,A4111;i1a

ttikalitailiZliii&Ail4Wiii2;

g / % OF STUDENTSAT STATED

atilbakMaiiLEVEL

.14A414044.,t-' .41ilriizi+44:41Ss4.tilWetiakit.eMaiiitsga,1Wek0.1.;.::HOLISTIC MEASURES OF WRITING AND READING

:.ii=h161166 .altichThVato-.011.1.1a141414:416:ii:61164.64:aiae.6141..e...W.,J.Liaj....;WRITING SAMPLENUMBER/PERCENT PRODUCING MATERIAL THAT IS:

; ..S.' '# / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / %

WELL WRITTEN WITH DEVELOPED SUPPORTNE DETAIL 7 OR 8GENERALLY WELL ORGANIZED WITH Str:PORTNE DETAIL S OR 6PINIMALLY PROFICIENT 4B 1. R 14 DIA STAN .AR. OR

.4kagaelluaira.DRP UNIT

SCORE# / %

-- tuilti.iiit:eattiii-la.tt'kvi;f&tgate.daktiZi'llitteirdaug-N-1.%,-"iifickffisit'iiiiQski# / % if/ % If/ % # / % # 1 % # / % # / % # / %

i.kmigii'....amLdzareeurgiciirtwaiatiesaigtr:,:amt,a,DEGREES OF READING POWER(DRP) aNUM3ER/PERCENT OF STUDENTS' # / %

AT OR ABOVE THE READING GOAL FOR BEGINNING EIGHTH GRADERS 62+Mow THE READING GOAL FOR BEGIN. NG EIGHTHGRADERS RUT ABOVE THE REMEDIAL VARDAR() 55 TO 61BELOW THE REMEDIAL STANOARO" BELOW 55

tifireolaiglikkaribilitagtialitiollitikiggiiid*MslikligalillfirMilaar;, .. -os 'AVERAGE SCORES

AvErt.GE Nu.I3ER OF OBJECTIVES tI4STERED IN LANGUAGE ARTSAVERAGE HOLISTIC WRITING SCORE

AVERAGE FIRP UNIT rICOR£

COPYRIGHT 0 ISE5 BY CONNECTICUT STA7E BOARD OF EDUCATIONALL RIGHTS RESERVED.PRINV.r) IN THE UNITED STATES OF AIAER CA

'REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 4 FOR WRITING."REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 55 ORP UNITS FOR READIhG

77

0296i

78

CONNECTICUT MASYERY TESTING PROGRAM DISTRI"T BY SCHOOL REPORT LANGUAGE ARTS

_.... .

TESTING DATE:


DISTRICT

*.l: F T 1, N i. n

LANGUAGE ARTS OBJECTIVES TESTED MASTERYCRITERIA

# / % # / % # 1 % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / % # / %

WRITING MECHANICS1. CAPITALIZATION MD PUNCTUATION2. SPELLING3. AGREEMENT (VERB 1 ctISE. SUBJECT/OBJNERB.

MD PRONOUN REFERENT)4. TONE

STUDY SKILLS5. LOCATING INFORMATION6. NoTETAKING MD OUTLINING

USTEHIHO COMPREHENSION7. LITERAL8. INFERENTIAL & EVA* IJITIVE

READING CO,. PREheNSION9. LITERAL10. INFERENTIAL

1 AVALI.' ..fii,'.t it..ii.:141:..A..1 a...4/.:4, .44"a:tea. ....11.. ::."....e.ta::-....g..Leatilli,4-"Ail,15...at'a-

HOUSTIC MEASURES OF WRITING AND READING

,1,«LiciatliciLsiMiAql 41:4- .:4..:4-.d.:84.4.1ii.i.ttf.1..114iriso '.:4/iLlaliAla..ii.:1:44.)1.WRITING SAMPLENUM NT R Ito IA THAT I

9 OF 12

6 OF 811 OF 15

3 OF 4

9 OF 123 OF 4

3 OF 412 OF 16

6 OF 810 OF 14

10 OF 14

HOLISTICSCORE

..,..idit14!..Z.k..1114i

# i %

L'AiliktAi4a1:2;i:Eil

# / %

ellri;'4.150'...'i..e..4........v,.,....:',..1.;:.

'../.44ak-.:-...-e.t.z.2.

# / % # / %

cL;S,47.11,1:1145=.t.....s.

h../.4.14.:44z.v4.1:4

# / %

t.14.2&%.).1'.a,.A:i

# / %

..c.,:,.4.1V,P,4.$1."2.4,,k,:ktio'thA

# / %

akarirAdidaaa....:0,

c.:t.g.azi ...4m4,.:r.r..ilivlicabliat# / %

# / % OF STUDENTSAT STATED LEVEL

# / %

IIIR2F4111114.111(411,111.110:141L1 11712.1.111:11111 WM=0 61111.3111.4....TMALIIIIIK.1.1.1a44. =a/au/1 11.i

MINIMA PRO NT 4IIMEM6j2=3FTIMMIIIIMINEIMIIIMIlignr.J ' ZikAlex ..f. t...64-1ths4a114 S.L.:1;...11.1%.i.G.V,141.4111.11°,41.4.61.*1arlatiti.4144:ilfti.0.1kAkia..1.1. tilaeAtilki;Ltjliiik41difltak.2..i.:..:1111.4.34Jwittgal4i2..Feid*/:3*-4.4,...6..tf.Vziis.:1.41.4.4A.1,11,,,

DEGREES OF READING POWER(DRP) eNUMSER:PERCENT OF STUDENTS.

DRP UNITSCOPE # / % # / % # / % # / % # / # / % # 1 % # / % # / %

AT OR ABOVE THE READING GOAL FOR BEGINNING EIGHT GRADERS 62BELOW THE READING GOAL FOR BEGINNING EIGHT GRADERS BUT

ABOVE THE REMEDIAL STANDARD 55 TO 61BELOW THE REMEDIAL STANDARD" BELOW 55

iriSIMINS141.., r 1 "i,'-= 7 frodaialigairadi sl; "framlataktfia 'alietWaitgaiitraikaUhrealit,t1.0:Zi

1, 'illI k er et.1 t64 ATI

AVERAGE SCORES

:I : . : 0 0: I : 1 , ..AVEPAGE HOLISTIC WRITING SCORE

: DRP UNIT SCOF.F

COPYRIGIIT 0 MS V CONNECTICUT STATE BOARD OF EDUCATIONALL RIGHTS RESERVED. PRINTED IN THE U SA

'REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 4 FOR WRITING."REMEDIAL STANDARD IS 55 ORP UNITS FOR READING

79

0306A3

(ConnecticutMastery TestingProgram

PARENT/STUDENT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

Your child's scores on the Connecticut Mastery Test are reported inside.

For a description of the Connecticut Mastery Testing Program, see the back cover of till, (older.

For general information about your local district's testing program, please contact your superintendent of schools.

For further information on the Connecticut Mastery Testing Program, contact. Connecticut State Department of Education,Office of Research and Evaluation, Box 2219, Hartford, Connecticut 06145, (203) 566-4001 or 4008

80

t MATHEMATICSSTUDENT OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS FOR

GRADE: SCHOOL

FORM: DISTRICT

TEACHER: TESTING DATE

NCONNECTICUT

MASTERY TESTING

PROGRAM

OBJECTIVES TESTED

MASTERY CRITERIA

STUDENTSCORE

NUMBER OFITEMS CORRECT

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS1. Order fractions 3 of 42. Order decimals 3 of 43. Round whole numbers 3 of 44. Round decimals to the nearest whole number, tenth and

hundredth3 of 4

5. Multiply and divide whole numbers and decimals by 10, 3 of 4100 and 1000

6. Identify fractions, decimals and percents from pictorialreprescitations

3 of 4

7. Convert fractions to decimals P- vice versa 3 of 48. Convert fractions and decim-* percents and vice versa 3 of 49. Identify points on number line:, ec ales and grids 3 of 4

10. Idertify ratios and fractional parts from given data 3 of 411. Idenlify an appropriate procedure for making estimates

with decimals and fractions3 of 4

COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS

12. Add and subtract whole numbers less than 10,000 3 of 413. Multiply and divide 2- and 3-digit whole numbers by 1-

and 2-digit numbers3 of 4

14. Add and subtract decimals (to hundredths) in horizontalform

3 of 4

15. Identify the correct placement of the decimal point inmultiplication and division of decimals

3 of 4

16. Add and subtract fractions and mixed numbers 3 of 417. Multiply fractions and mixed numbers 3 of 418. Determine the percent of a number 3 of 419. Estimate sums and differences or whole numbers and

decimals including making change3 of 4

20. Estimate -)roducts and quotients of whole numbers anddecimals

3 of 4

21. Estimate fractional parts am] percents of whole numbersand money amounts

3 of 4

I

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATIONHARCOURT BRACE IOVANOVICH PUBLISHERS

GRADE 8 REPORT PART 1

./-

OBJECTIVES TESTED

MASTERY CRITERIA-1

STUDENTSCORE

NUMBER OFITEMS CORRECT

PROBLEM SOLVING/APPLICATIONS

22 Compute sums, differences, products and quotients using-a calculator

3 of 4

23. Interpret graphs, tables and charts 3 of 424. Solve 1- and 2-step problems involving whole numbers

and decimals including averaging3 of 4

25. Solve 1- and 2-step problems involving fractions 3 of 426. Solve problems involving measurement 3 of 427. Solve problems involving elementary probability 3 of 428. Estimate a reasonaole answer to a given problemt 3 of 429. Solve problems with extraneous information 3 of 430. Identify needed information in problem situations 3 of 431. Solve process problems irnolving the organization of data 3 of 4

MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

(with calculator available)

32. Identify figures using geometric terms 3 of 433 Measure and determine perimeters and areas 3 of 434. Estimate lengths, areas, volumes and angle measiires 3 of 435. Select appropriate metric or customary units and

measures3 of 4

36. Make measurement conversions within systems

tvothout calculator available

3 of 4

\--TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED (out of 36)

NUMBER OF rums CORRECT (out of 144) (Remedial Standard is 78 of 144 items correct)

82

LANGUAGE ARTSSTUDENT OBJECTIVES ANALYSIS FOR

GRADE:

FORM:

TEACHER:

SCHOOL

DISTRICT

Tr 'INC DATE i

CONNECTICUT

MASTERY TESTING

PROGRAM

THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CORPORATIONHARCOURT ERA(' IOVANOVICH PUNISHERS

GRADE 8 REPORT ?ART 2iOBJECTIVES TESTED MASTERY CRITERIA STUDENT

SCORENUMBER OF ITEMS CORRECT

WRITING MECHANICS

1. Capitalization & Punctuation2. Spelling3. Agreement (verb tense, subject- object -verb, and pronoun referents)4. Tone

9 of 126 of 8

11 of 153 of 4

STUDY SKILLS

5. Locating Information (schedules, maps, indexes, glossaries, dictionaries)6. Notetaking and Outlining 9 of 12

3 of 4

USTENING COMPREHENSION7. Literal (understands the meaning; of ideas clearly stated by a scPaker)8. Inferential & Evaluative (understands the meanings of ideas not clearly stated, but implied, by a speaker

and is able to make critical judgments about them)

3 of 412 of 16

READING COMPREHENSION,9. Literal (understands the meanings of ideas clearly stated within a passage)

10. Inferential (understands the meanings of ideas not stated, b,t implied, within a passage)11. Evaluative (able to make critical judgments about statements and inferences within a passage)

6 of 810 of 1410 of 14

( TOTAL NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED (out of 11)

WRITING SAMPLE

Holistic Writing Score

STUDENTSCORE

Remedial Standard is 4 of 8

DEGREES OF READING POWERS (DRP)TM 31 LAJCIN ISCORE

DRP Units

Remedial Standard is 55 DRP UnitsReading Goal is 62 DRP Units

i (..Degrees of Reading Power and DRP are trademark, owned by the College Entrance I xammat.on Board I

Copyright © 1987 by Connecticut State Board of Education All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America

8384

-Dear Parent:

Inside you will find the re ults of the Connecticut Mastery Test administered to you: chid earlier this fall. The test results F 2Ip to show you andthe school district's professional staff how well your child is perr3rming on those skills identified by the State of Connecticut ac important forstudents entering eighth grade to have mastered.

These tests are designed to determine the specific skill levels of students. The test results will be used to:provide your school with information for use in asses - mg the progress of individual students over time;provide your school with information based on which improvements in the general instructional program can be made, andprovide information on appropriate basic skills remedial assistance for students so indicated.

Mastery testing will occur each fall in grades four, six, and eight.

If you have any questions about these test results please ask your child's teacher(s). The teacher(s) will share w'th you other observations andrecommendations based on experience in working with your son or daughter during the last several months.

PARENT/STUDENT DIAGNOSTIC REPORT

Description of the Test

Mathematics: The mathematics test assesses thirty-six (36) specific objectives in foul general areas of: (1) Conceptual L iderstandings; (2)Computational Skills; (3) Problem Solving/Applications; and (4) Measurement /Geometry. Test items evaluate a student's ability to: orderfractions ano decimals; round whole numbers and decimals; make conversions among fractions, decimals and percents, compute with wtolenumbers, decimals and fractions; Esiimate with whole numbers, decimals and fractions, solve 1- and 2-step problems involving wholenumbers, decimals, fractions, measurement and elementary probability (with a calculator available); estimate a reasonable answer to aproblem; solve problems with extraneous information and identify needed information in problem situations. ineasuie and/or estimatelengths, areas, volumes and angle measures; make measurement conversions; and select appropriate measuremer t mils.

Language Arts: The langLage arts test covers two general areas: Reading/Listening Comprehension and Writing/Study Skills. Then are eleven(11) objectives and two holistic measures of reading and wrii.ng.

The content of Reading/Listening Comprehension consists of narrative, expository, and persuasive passages on a variety of topics measuring astudent's reading and listening ability in: (1) Literal Comprehension; (2) Inferential or Interpretive Comprehension; and (3) Evaluative or CriticalComprehension. Audio tapes are used to assess a student's listening comprehension ability. Also used is the "Degrees of Reading Power" (ORP)Test which includes eleven (11) passages and seventy-seven (77) test items. It is designed to measure a student's ability to understand onfic-tionEnglish prose on a graduated scale of reading difficulty.

The content of Writing /Study ;','.ill; consists of three comoonents. First, writing skills are directly assessed. A student is asked to write on adesignated topic. The writing s. j...dged on the stadent's demonstrated ability to convey information in a coherent and organized fashion.Second, the test assesses the mechanics of good writing, which are defined as: (1) Capitalization and Punctuation, (2) Spelling, (3) Agreement;and (4) Tone. Finally the test assesses Study Skills, which have been defin:d as Locating Information (schedules, maps, index references, anddictionary usagcl arid Outlining and Notetaking. This part of the test measures a student's ability to find and use information from listedsources, and to make notes from audio tapes.

APPENDIX G

Number of Objectives Mastered

o Mathematics

o Language Arts

86

,,'

MATHEMATICS: MATHEMATICS:AVERAGE NUMBER OF PERCENT OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY BY

OBJECTIVES MASTERED NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

36

30

24

18

12

23.7

6

0

1986

YEAR

This bar chart illustrates theaverage number of mathemat-ics objectives mastered,statewide.

30

20

10

00% Pi

14%.111=MEMP

21%

26%..11111,

31%

0 1-7 8.14 15.21 22.28 29.35

NUMBER OF OBJECTIVES MASTERED

4%

n36

This bdr chart illustrates the distribution of stuc its, statewide, who masteredmathematics objectives within each of the sewn score categories.

87

LANGUAGE ARTS:AVERAGE NUMBER OF

OBJECTIVES MASTERED

o 11-..wCC 10(0< 9-2Ul 8

0CC 4co2 3-.D

2 -

1-

7.5

1986

YEAR

This bar chart illustrates theaverage number of languagearts objectives ma !et ed,stateide.

LANGUAGE ARTS:PERCENT OF STUDENTS ACHIEVING MASTERY BY


25+-

20 -

15

u_ 11%0

7%

52%

00 1.2

18%11 4 %

2 %

21%

3.4 5.6 7-6 9.10 11


This bar chart ilListrates the distribution of students, statewide, who mastered ob-jectives within each of the seven score groupings.

88

Aprendix H

State by District Report October 1986

Grade Eight Mathematics Test Results

r) 9

90,

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTCONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM GRADE 8

DATE TESTED: 10-86

Mastery Critena for each objective Is3 of tne 4 items correctRemedial Standard is 78Of the 144 items correct

MATHEMATICS 1 OF 2

PAGE 1

DISTRICT# OF

STUDENTSTESTED

ANSONIA 127ASHFORD 46AVON 150

BERLIN 161

BETHEL 191BLOOMFIELD 170

BOLTON 45BOZRAH 18

BRANFORD 232

BRIDGEPORT 1,027

BRISTOL 573BROOKFIELD 190BROOKLYN 89CANAAN 11

CANTERBURY 67CANTON 75

CHESHIRE 323CLINTON 161CDLCHESTER 108COLUMBIA 39CDRNHALL 6

COVENTRY 126CROMHELL 97DANBURY 555DARIEN 205DERBY 95

EASTFORD 10

EAST GRAhBY 51

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS' MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

5 46 56 88 5559 49 75 77 86 956 83 93 93 89 85 74 96 78 9? 964 80 75 89 83 85 79 93 89 9r 974 57 70 91 81 68 64 75 73 8 894 66 72 94181 76 63 88 75 9 882 59 51 88,54 64 51 67 65 8 894 78 82 91 80 73 67 91 71101 915 72 61 94 72 72 67 72 6710 OD4 62 68 91 81 74 61 83 75 91

1 36 37 73 33 50 30 56 67 7 74

3 51 51 85 49 60 52 72 69 8 81

4 72 76 95 76 78 73 82 75 92

6 58 49 88 46 62 52 61 63 8 846 36 91 91 73 45 55 64 55 91 06 73 69 88 60 87 82 91 91 96 934 81 64 93 75 81 77 87 88 9 9

2 76 82 95 88 77 80 90 85 9. 95 68 71 91 68 76 75 88 83 9

5 50 62 87 62 62 57 70 69 82 85 54 51 82 77 74 56 79 82 8 86 00000 83100100 83100100100104 56 56 87 66 67 63 75 67 8 864 69 69 89 81 71 67 85 72 9 90

3 49 50 85 61 60 52 '0 68 8 82 82 76 93 85 90 89 95 84 9 9

5 29 33 81 51 55 42 61 51 8 82

6 60 SO 80300 60 60100 80 80 94 80 78 94 88 78 75 84 71 9

53 95 9 001 55 37 15 4 75 674Y 22.6 14

96 93 96 9 72 57 33 54 93 76 52 27.9 2

85 95 9 92 77 64 64 6 90 79 74 29.7 3

68 94 98, 8 47 24 30 46 80 70 53 23.6 13

77 96 97 9 77 71 76 6 90 85 65 27.5 6

61 96 94 9 53 36 44 4 73 62-52 22.5 16

82 98100 96 60 40 36 4 91 8 62 27.0 2

61100100 67 56 78 7 78 7 72 26.8 11

72 97 98 9 73 53 58 5 89 7 53 25.9 9

35 92 91 8 51 17 28 30 55 4 32 17.2 41

56 95 94)8 52 33 38 44 72 63 49 21.8 22

72 91 94 9 58 57 64 5 87 71 59 27.1 9

43 97 96 7 53 30 44 4 70 4 40 21.7 27

73100 9110 73 36 45 2 82 73 36 22.8 0

76 99 99 9 67 52 75 6 82 6 61 27.5 3

77 99 99 9 65 55 59 71 83 7 73 28.4 4

81 97 97 71 54 58 6 90 86 68 28.5 4

73 95 91 9 61 60 66 6 85 72 61 26.4 8

69 96 96 8 59 36 32 4 69 61 49. 23.1 21

62 9? 92 9 64 41 59 56 7S 74 49 24.8 5

83L0010010 03100 83 83 00 OD 83 X3.5 0

69 84 90 8 46 40 40 5 81 67 52 23.5 18

72 96 97 89 u5 57 72 5 88 77 56 26.1 9

5341.

92 91 88 52 28 30 43 72 65 45 22.0 23

8 98 99 95 79 7C 73 6 94 80 70 30.0 1

32 94 96 81 52 16 29 2 71 56 39 19.9 26

80 00100 90 60 30 30 50100 70 30 25.5 0

82 9.2 98 88 65 9 53 61 e6 88 69 27.4 4

0 IOU Conecucin Stet. Board of Education. All rights reserved Printed in de United Slat*, of Arnim.

910311A3

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTRADE 8 MATHEMATICS F

DATE TESTED: 10-66

Mastery Cntena for each objective Is3 of the 4 Items owedPAmodtal Standard Is 78of the 144 Items correct

OBJECTIVES TESTED

PROBLEM SOLVING AND APPLICATIONS MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

TOTALMATHEMATICS

PAGE 1

'to 4 'to IN *4, 4 / A0 i'

4 3. O 'o AO v i. le.4 c. ekt..? %91CD : 40 N. ,% A:14, 41' tqlpz0. 4 4 2 i 0,., lit. %, 4: 44. -1 `17v .0 .... <0, I, :. 41...,,e 4 0. 4,74

11% 9418, 2 4'1, ., o '1. % 41,e '3# q, o ..3 .

'0,IC D .:.3 f- o.% 9 is- D SeI- ... .3 4>

o, c11. 4,6 A.

2..4, .0 \ '3 / ..,

I- 4 4o o 4/

\ \ \# OF

DISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUOENTSTESTED MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

'MURIA 12T 5 9 : f 1 6' 8ASHFORD 46 6 10C 72 - 65 59 89 8 78 8' 70 65 4. 7. 85 46 27.9 2AVON 150 4 10C 79 9 78 Ci 81 8' 88 89 68 89 64 8. 89 69 29.7 3BERLIN 161 4 99 65 ; 51 24 63 7. 75 80 41 55 23 7 83 19 23.6 33BETHEL 191 4 99 73 9' 72 36 72 az 85 60 71 40 6' 85 34 27.5 6BLOOKIELD 170 2 100 67 7. 56 26 64 66, 77 42 42 25 5. 72 27 22.5 16BOLTON 45 4 100 82 9 53 49 64 9' 82 84 58 82 29 7. 91 42 27.0 2BOZRAM 18 5 100 61 0' 78 4' 94 8 7- it 3' 62 56 7.100 22 26.8 11BRANFORD 232 4 98 73 8' 60 31 64 8. 7 81 5 69 36 6. 84 35 25.9 9BRIDGEPORT 1,027 1 97 56 4' 38 IC 31 5. 4 58 2 32 16 3 65 12 17.2 41BRISTOL 573 3 97 61 45 24 54 7- 6 74 47 24 58 82 24 21.8 22BROOKFIELD 190 4 99 71 9. 66 54 71 8 8 E6 5 74 43 76 79 57 27 1 9BROOKLYN 89 6 97 60 7' 40 22 67 7' 7 77 4 69 28 59 80 23 21.7 27CANAAN 11 6 10 55 9 45 27 45 9 55 5 82 9 55 64 0 22.8 0CANTERBURY 67 6 10 74 .- 84 3. 85 87 67 37 81 93 33 27.5 3CANTON 75 4 9 79 9. 71 5. 88 8 7' 95 5 71 53 85 85 53 28.4 4CHESHIRE 323 2 9 76 9. 77 5' 78 8 87 6 74 36 80 86 54 28.5 4CLINTON 161 5 9 69 9' 64 3. 77 8 7 77 66 41 73 89 31 26.4 8COLCHESTER 108 5 9 75 7' 50 3 69 7 6 76 4 58 29 60 a 31 23.1 21COLUMBIA 39 5 100 67 9, 49 3 69 8" 7 85 5 56 33 62 90 34 24.8 5:."/RtatALL 6 6 100 8310' 83 6 10010' 0 00 8 00 8i 83100 83 33.5 0COVENTRY 126 4 98 67 8: 5i 3. 60 7. 7 76 4 52 3a 63 80 32 23.5 18CROMELL 97 4 99 78 85 66 3* 74 7 7 79 4 59 40 59 BE 40 26.1 9DAMLIRY 555 3 97 66 71 41 2. 59 7' 6 69 4 49 27 57 76 28 22.0 23DARIEN 205 2 100 74 97 76 6 80 8 89 6 80 65 87 89 63 30.0 1DERBY 95 5 96 63 81 29 1 56 7* 6 66 3 65 16 52 77 24 19.9 26EASTFORD 10 6 100 70 90 50 7. 60 8' 7 90 6 60 0 70 90 40 25.5 0EAST GRANBY 51 4 100 61 94 80 4' 69 7 75 6 78 49 67 86 43 27.4 4

O OM Comoctnut Use Duni a Etluc.suon. Alt nerds teetered Pnnted to the 1.1AU4 Sutc America

92 93

CONNECTICUT MASTERY TESTING PROGRAM

DATE TESTED: 10 -86

Mastery Criteria for each objective is3 of the 4 items correctRemedial Standard is 78of the 144 Items correct

DISTRICT

LASTEAST HAMPTONEAST HARTFORDEAST HAVENEAST LYMEEASTONEAST NINDSORELLINGTONENFIELDFAIRFIELDFARMINGTONFRANKLINGLASTONBURYGRANBYGREENNICHGRISNOLLGROTONGUILFORDHAMDENHARTFORDHARTLANDKENTKILLINGLYLEBANONLEOTARDLISBONLITCHFIELDMADISON

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 8

OBJECTIVES TESTEDMATHEMATICS 1 OF 2

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS COMPUTATIONAL SKILLSTOTAL

MATHEMATICSPAGE 2

18 OF

STUDENTSTESTED

70105352167184788711445943616128

328111434102367246340

1,3041436

18280

2295077

213

TOC

2

2

44443

2

4

44243421

6

66

6

446

5

SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

57 sr 80 61 60 63 86 74 831 7757'94 VI 84 4r It61 54 90 63 61 66 85 74 90 93 6& 94 94 97 64 3657 56 89 67 63 52 77 67 87 B7 60 92 95 89 61 4146 45 86 46 47 48 51 59 83 78 56 93 95 84 43 3064 83 91 90 86 66 89 67 89 89 84 89 93 93 654872 69 94 85 92 77 92 91 90 92 91 97 99 94 81 6557 41 92 48 60 55 62 63 90 90 60 91 97 86 43 2471 83 92 91 83 68 90 78 98 93 75 97 98 96 74 4158 58 88 56 62 56 68 64 85 83 61 95 96 89 59 372 61 91 74 74. 71 81 72 92 91 78 95 94 88 6278 79 96 91 80 79 96 86 94 94 85 97 99 99 7757 71 79 79 57 54 86 64 86 79 71 86 89 89 5078 86 93 BO 87 80 88 87 94 93 82 92 95 95 6857 60 95 86 71 68 78 77 90 85 69 95 95 95 6175 70 90 78 83 77 87 80 91 93 75 96 97 91 6249 81 92 90 74 52 77 69 8B 90 70 93 94 9S 5955 56 81 52 64 54 68 70 80 80 60 94 94 90 6269 70 94 80 72 74 84 72 91 87 81 93 97 87 59 456 47 87 56 62 55 66 63 81 81 60 93 89 82 4933 27 76 34 44 22 47 62 66 70 17 95 92 85 48 257 57 91 79 93 71 79 93100100 64100100 71 79 fof75 %5 92 92 86 67 92 94 92100 92 94100100 693655 54 86 69 59 50 60 62 83 78 60 91 91 78 42 250 55 81 48 53 51 65 61 85 83 48 95 90 88 53 259 64 91 83 73 65 77 75 88 91 68 93 97 91 61 462 38 90 60 72 66 78 76 84 96 66 98 98 94 5661 86 B7 81 75 74 87 86 91 88 65 92 91 87 656B 78 91 91 74 71 88 82 92 90 81 94 99 96 70

47

32

53

2

4

3

66

51

3r 39 76 6346 47 86 6652 51 79 7026 46 75 5948 4S 91 7778 65 94 9015 33 75 6143 50 89 8139 39 78 6244 55 82 7176 66 94 8571 32 82 5759 69 90 7532 51 87 7758 67 85 7534 35 85 7952 40 75 6643 50 88 773B 41 74 5926 28 55 5279 64 79 9336 69 92 8136 34 73 5926 35 69 5448 49 86 7172 42 74 7071 77 86 7756 63 93 85

53494745606030594&597054

70

63434

4327643556506

63

fe Connocucut Stow Booed of Eduction NI tlfets rosorwl Printi Id in tho Undod Stows of Amotics

22.424.923.220.826.429.5

21.726.622.725.729.224.128.924.727.424.022.525.921.916.528.227.821.521.325.724.327.427.8

178

16247

3

193

2210

1

11

49

9

9219

2546

03

22

169

4

071113

ING PROGRSTATE BY DISTRICT REPORT

GRADE 8 MATHEMATICS F 2

DATE TESTED: 10-86

Mastery Crams roc each omectmt is3 at the 4 items correct.fterneesal Standard is Tftot to 144 items correct

OBJECTIVES TESTED

°ROBLEM SOLVING AND APPLICATIONS MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

TOTALMATHEMATICS

PAGE 2

S 'Po, 12, B 44, cP 13 c to * 4c. c.04, CI; Vc +2S%., .14. 4., 4. 4. 4. 44, l '1,4 % "'t, . to ,,, 4.01°y 13,5",

% i o ' : % 41/4 % N S. t, -e-o ° to %, qi,"+,, 0.ots.oe. .., ., 1,. 43.° -,.. s 4, ..=' 4; -4. s,3%,- 4t, 44. 44. 4-0 *.i, % . I,01,... A, 6, % % .:2 a 4., , e ,,, .1. .. 0,40/ . hip

ea" %, Pp 4.0 o,-0 i vs. , % .' t o % 4 1, c' / & 4:. 1404.4.

0, 3 % 'tt 6.4 .t. di. .t q % % $ ,. %sty o, % 46 ... ''G % 43 ' .' 4.*'4,. 4. i t d °F '0 ci 0.4, **, sti, 4> 4 4. ,, 4., fi.

°O 11. & 4 'Pe..a..9 tr... %

DISTRICTSi OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF rTUDENTSMASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

. T. .. rEAST HAMPTCNEAST HARTFORDEAST HAVENEAST L Y M EEASTONEAST $4INDSORELLINGTONENFIELDFAIRFIELDFARRINGTONFRANKLINGLASTONBURYGRANIYGREEMICHGRISNOLDGROTONGUILFORDHAMDENHARTFORDHARTLANDKENTKILLINGLYLEBANONLEDYARDLISBONLITCHFIELOMADISON

701053521671847887

114459406161

2832`111434102367246340

1,3041436

18280

2295077

213

55224444

-324544243421A

6664465

99999

109

10999969996999798999897

3009796

10099989600

67.7.66;7.6'6'67-8.67'7.7'6676588668676883a

768672709091719074899696937789377086714593837271868e7592

44494944627739615062788273506954586245347147404960546575

23'2145-2.32'3'3'25'3.43'23'2155214344

53'755657728257658738482817180564972Z".:2964,10069446565667581

7685777482907686777989868?80847474847352

817575d2728183

65816863838672826576867586678364687767469383636573768382'

71797677m908290718390869077858C718472559386697689827788

40574547Ea6448483853646158456243385538286458414448486260

D.6;4'

85

:

67'4'7'

6'4'57

;3.8.8'6.4'6676

29202624265120292940432957374415283222134333291441124844

64696154746863756374726080737963607259347181546276707782

7'8'8';

88818,T898.8.88'87'87;5.7'8.78.88.8.8

2450282047763336320333521603139442036371q3644315106C40

22.424.923.220.826.429.521.726.622.725.729.224.128.924.727.424.022.525.921.916.528.227.821.5'21.3,25.724.327.427.8

178

1624

73

193

2210

111

4999

219

2546

03

2225

916

94

3 914 CANIOODKUI Stew Beare 01 Eeeeetnin NI (Ina (*served Punted In the Unded Sums of AIIMIKII

960312A3

98

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTMATHEMATICS t OF 2,d,./.1.16,... 1St,. f en -,- . 6,1 11,..1..., I fss.,,,A.V.

.

DATE TESTED: 1 ' -416

Mastery Criteria for arch ob;ective is2 of the 4 items correctRemedial Standard is 78of the 144 items correct

-.....-- -OBJECTIVES TESTED


MATHEMATICS

PAGE 3

O o p p 1) cr rp Cr ad *) 0 4 *) 4'cr 4' cr qr... &S.. * / 1;1'1'

41 cr 4. cr c% 1. 1.44 °c * 2', 21, 6) c',,,. 0 Lb Pc. t?ar % 6 Is. c"

00, c, 1- o 4, .1.1, 9 6./.0209. 4,0 6) '*) 1,, % r .4. o, %, o % *

.2. Ac. ,. lo -- iii 4'c. 'Yr/'7)6 4' et, 176 % *7 7) 4 C...9 ch. c,Ir 4"40 44 ir 1.1 d. 0,. ,),.

.1.-.5. % 0,. ^ 4) 4'

. °. 2), 41. 1 ?"' 4 6:3 (1.1) 1).. C' 0 ,/ % t,0 % +o,* et, *>, 17, is "e %/ 4. 4 '... +et, '7) 4. . c.t t * c

*7 o, % lc- ,), 40- * 4i't *c;, m,ti. * .41o, '''''

6e,. do,., 't. et,

e

ci,,

24.326.122.421.623.824.723.822.019.128.726.416.826.320.825.227.124.725.025.225.421.321.926.226.221.023.922.626.7

1111212311

11

141930aa446

259

515a12525206

5za15206

DISTRICT# OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC

587055'61

61

59604437795939724267686661787547167SO605169

SCORES

55705247476447525175764164485975567170584552627848615563

888984868588918981919072948092929184889484838898878891

91

INDICATE

58776753467962706782884171487605737468685671829646665578

676364636573676755817747715872756268737259608566SS716875

63785849596353453779732667386776646172664850606956555669

THE

78817166728280646290895483678489777979826565798862776881

PERCENT

76787271707571646287826178717684798274727170757363676884

88731792848592928787759190S889779092879292977786918985889191

OF

8986818778938878999165927691938197909483809292808'all

91

STUDENTS

7.6

5'6

71

66534687'

4676566

8076

772566

7'7'4666

7

3949293949497

969297929296949595919796949394949292939397

94949494939596959496969097969895919296979296959888919697

MASTERING

89888790879387888396873594929494869290888891

949688908897

62505961527061605969664865635862587958455161626744595081

464332224037362923684818523341413834503832314642363715SO

EACH

55423936454540432E

83482355474753323753

42

52

43

3475

OBJECTIVE

52694534504646443.

6761245950516860475462414261483851415.r

78867973768277756492845885698888827686786869818866f62807391

68686766727669675785725078Gl70827274716860647978

736891

SS6545375448414631

71542760515465525361

54384S535441Sk4147

WERTffnMANSFIELDMERIDENMIDDLETOMNMILFORDMONROEMONTVILLEt4AUGATUCKNEM BRITAIrNEN CANAANNEM FAIRFIELDNEM HAVENNEMINGTONNEM LONDONNEM MILFORDNEK1ON4NORTH BRANFORDNORTH CANAANNORTH HAVENNORTH STONINGTONNORMALKNDRMICHDLD SAYBROOKOXFORDPLAINFIELDPLAINVILLEPLYMOUTHPOMFRET

485108488363459257223316412216202

1,01429616328626514938

21265

65736310685

16517716232

6

333442

32

41

2

35546

2

53355642

6

IL 1114 Conracuci. Suu Board of Educalum All nem ussrvod. Po usl ii the United Suus of Arnow'

99

Y TESTING PROGRASTATE BY DISTRICT REPORT

GRADE 8 MATHEMATICS F

DATE TESTED: 10-86

Meway Critena for IllaCh ObjCtive if3 01 Me 4 items conedRemedial Standmd Is 78of the 144 items conecl

OBJECTIVES TESTED

PROOLEMSOLVINGANDAPPLICATIONS MEASUREMENT/4EOMETRY

TOTALMATHEMATICS

PAGE 3

Q., 'to, Jo ii, 4. 'SD t S, "c o oslit tit.,e- , S., * 4 0 o (**6 . 4, ,o 4,4.0, % ' 'I'. tl e- t 4 lb t P411,

4 c.0 4 / /4 .4 /. 4% ' i+,4..04 S

'gott,

4.- 4 4 4i,. oo ' p 41, % ';'.4.% ' ..

0 4. *JO,: (% .6% 3 ,p,

#o, l't .3, 1)'" ../ 43- ') tl

NJ 3 0e , 4 1.4 4c.

.4.

DISTRICT# OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTSMASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

H T

MANSFIELDMERIDENMIDDLETONMILFORDMONROEMONTVILLENAUGATUCKNEN BRITAINNEN CANAANNEN FAIRFIELDNEN HAVENNENINOTONHEN LONDONNEN MILFORDNEKTONNORTH BRANFORDNORTH CANAANNORTH HAVENNORTH STONINOTONNORNALXMORNICHOLD SAYBROOKOXFORDPLAINFIELDPLAINVILLEPLYMOUTHPOMFRET

:108488363459257223316412216202

1,01429616328626514938

21265

6573631068516517716232

6333442

32

412

355462

533556

426

998

98

10C95

10095

9

989E

95

99

95

999597

100

98100929897

10098

10C97

10C

7j6

6

6

6

66,'4

86

57

6

67,

6

6

7

72

60

65

6373

566

7

a8576

6578

908775

628592

48BE70

849179

79

879170

74

899271

857394

6.44.5'5.

6.4:

3.

76.3

6.

4.

6.

6

5.66

4#

4.

4'6.5:

4'51

56.

p..392

2

30333221

15

484011

3018

364383937

5126

22

424222

3530

50

76

555468

6261544674

73

3375

42667767506966sr55

636755535469

86

73

65

83

7774

67

58858153

83

63

84838579

77

77

63

75

858875

77

81

84

816

6

7.

7.7.

7.

5'

8.

4'7'

6

7'

86'8.71

7

6.

6-77

576

7

87.

6;

8.7.

8.

7.

6.

8.8'

8.

6

88'7'

787'

6

7178

76

698079

88

4.

3'

54'4'4'2.

7.

5'

2

61

3.

4':

:

5'5'

:

4.

3:4'444'43

71

4960

71

6654433679

5932

78

455765

67

97

42694748

/13

81'8

..:1

57

3427

25

25

3226

231346361228

20

26414032343829

21

4529

1824

1422

1

71

51

6068

6564614375

75

37

76

476976

65616380555778

76

546669

72

87

6'

7'

88-8.

81

7

9$

8:

586.

8.A.

8:

8el6775868779

8273

94

.

3'

34

2

3.3

3'2.1'

441

31

21

3,

3-43.2*

4'3

28535422313128

24.

26.122.4

21.623.824.723.d22.019.128.726.416.826.3

20.825.227.124.725.025.225.422.321.926.226.221.023.922.626.7

11

2123

11

1114193066

446

25

9515

8125

25206

52915206

0 MI Connococut Sigh Boyd of F.OuraDon All net. mono. Prinled en the Undod St.los of Amoik

101

°MAI

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTMP-HEMATICS 1 0F_2NoVVIVIVolv V VW./ V mr1.01 lo. I 1,1/ 1 1.1,10.

DATE TESTED: 10-86

Mastery Cnterla fo, each objective Is3 of the 4 flans correct.Remedial Standard is 71of the 144 items correct.

OBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS COMPUTATIONAL SKIDTOTAL

MAJHEMATICSPAGE 4

4.0. 4-,,_ % it, % 4.,,, ei, (I, io, 4,, i,, eci, 'o,,, ,r.: wr,.. .4, .4, .r.:,

ti '.'. S S IIP } N-%!41') .40 eft.7A. ti;:qN 4' ;' 4k7:. Cli et"%, % 4;.1), tO.t. 01_ /4 '4_4 * 4' 6/e j. AT % 9 % / "IT 'IT /or

% 14#/ .., 1°' dq'. Y -C:. V. V47. I% #6d4 17. 64% SI>N 40 6°1 1# 41.6 . I. A 04. # 4. vit., .... + 4 ' Co,, 1.1). q ,. Sto, #;, sly 4. .2,it, ti. q. .. 'et ,,,, 6...464e,e

4', e** 44.4114 ° tit' 44 %.. 44q, 4. Ck!n.7 n. .4.. eq. 4% 44q,-Cq 400 Ve.,it. ...._ 4, e+ 4. p -4_ 4, -,, w ,gt, 4.... 4. t,

*4.. 0 4), ':f 4**.f e e dis .... qi, vi * +9,, 1.. ',,, r te, 'b, lb. oe

61'4 Ivo 'IP joy, -44 , ' ,, ,,st 1 4 'II* ° 4 N 1 1 .. . ..4.% % ''.4} qb 4 .r0 . CI, #

'..0

.;° '1!.l'

DISTRICT# OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

PORTLANDPRESTONPUMAREDOINGRIDGEFIELDROCKY RILLSALEMSALISBURYSEYHOURSHARONSHELTONSHERMANSIMSBURYSOMERSSOUTHINGTONSOUTH KINDSORSPRAGUESTAFFORDSTANFORDSTERLINGSTONINGTONSTRATFORDSUFFIELDTHOMASTONTHOMPSON1OLLANDTORRINGTONTRUMBULL

9360891133061264221

13815

31421

31687

47324927

11265931

15643512584107147236349

546

554565636

4432451

642446

552

726570887371625243,5060585276776066637152557562564961726860

6753sa8576716757100.

5362437962535152100824865805858607E.'

627365

94909494929681

7a60888191919384

95799496869383948896S9

89727383867774816347724885776867598853617961726377718073

7773669379806281695I.

69718482697170716071847069,686483837175

706764

75786957485147575284796365637250557264

576373'886270

84858894907974817473747193877780899464748578836288

8187

757088888887766770736581858375728593686e80777360ea847181

9.9.8"9

9

9.-

9'.909

8.

879

9

8'

8'

9

9.

.

-*

88,

9"

9

92909294959081

888785

9

9

a9

88890(7097191939192

857

76

9

6

6

6 -'95

52898473637881574840085

61a82747169

919379961009498958640096000.00

8696959796939693

9692949398999896

959589

979890

96

959599979796899894909796998996969897

94192160820

97949683907793898696908790899585879293948392919595

71

697571715048577364S77277666063695455766564507177369

4728sa756053332935274162sa514548374933394145422546545259

46405772646536144127507174614843415035324955363345645564

5645587471674333504045387569525067664232685757-864065615863

882739589867476726C789

838383818972778778

7381908585

6656978797564627373719283.

838166788564618171716284718077

.144'

626.

6

4-34;

4.

5,57.

6

5.

5'

56

46526

-

61

606

60;

24.723.930.028.227.123.523.322.322.823.923.629.427.624.824.624.327.421.522.227.424.825.021.526.426.926.226.9

8104056

140

20

20

13

2427

131243

3016

8139

27a776

INS COMIC04.11 Um lard M Education An rights maned. Printed In Ow UnIud Stew of America.

03sit

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 4 MATHEMATI

OBJECTIVES TESTED

PROBLEM SOLVING AND APUCATION MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

TOTALMATHEMATICS

PACE 4

I., lk, 6 At_ 14c41b '<Ia.*04. : : 4. % 11,;421; 4, 1).tel/t.

4IN

14o;t1As .' 144 4# # ,4) -'4N'''.4.DATE TESTED: 10-84.11a,. 41- 1. ' \SI. c. ",y, 41.- c'e

-4:4> * 4, $ %. . b.1,4-4. % ssa-4, *$ % 6,44. 'la, 4'644assmy Wens lot loch oblectivs Is

% 4. A. 4. e14 4i 42, ... ft, 4.. 4. ...).41. %.3 of the 4 limns cured r % N \ s

4,N. /s.

Rern441s1 Stamm) Is ISat Use 144 IMens corrsti.

.{,.. % .s tio ,

I OFDISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS

TESTED MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE*. V I' . . .T, T, .1 7 27.3 6PRESTON 60 4 6. 8 4 4. 57 115 8 4, 5. 3 7 90 4. 24.7 10PUTNAM 89 6 0. 5 . 4 2 65 57 6 4 5 e3 3' 23.9 4

REDOING 113 5 9 9 6 85 9 ea 9 6 .7C1 5 81 94 30.0 0RIDGEFIELD 306 5 0. 7 92 4 77 83 8 6 . 72 4 76 85 4 28.z. 5ROW MILL 226 4 9. 7 84 6 3. 72 7. 78 54 4 75 89 4 27.1 6SALEM 42 5 0. 7 84 5. 2 71 64 8 5. 42 3 64 90 1 23.5 14SALISSURY 21 4 . 0 . 9. 81 4 I. 62 9. 71 9' 4. 43 2 57 81 1 23.3 0S E Y M O U R 138 5 9 5 7 5 5 : 511 7 61 7= 3 2 54 76 22.3 20SHARON 15 4 0. 6. 80 5 2 73 73 9 5 6 4 60 73 1 22.8 20SKELTON 314 3 9 6 83 5 2 62 6 72 ' 5 3 51 81 2 23.9 13SHERMAN 21 4 9 8 10 5 3. 52 76 6 4 6 4 52 81 3 23.6 24SINSDLIRY 316 4 9 95 7 4. 94 8 89 8 6 5 Ile 89 3' 29.4 2SOMERS 87 4 9. 7 92 3 61 77 5 90 5 8 85 3 27.6 7sounarcroN 473 3 9 6' t 4 5 3 62 8. if 7. 4 67 2 73' 76 3 24.8 I:SOUTH M I N D S O R 249 2 0. 6 85 6' 3. 64 7 77 8 5 51 2 72 72 24.6 12S P R A G U E 27 4 0 7. 89 4 . 1= 70 6 7 30 71 78 ?a I 24.3 4STAFFORD 112 5 '0. 7 90 6 3. Di 7 4 61 36 66 fie 4 27.4 3STANFORD 659 1 9. 6 70 4 2 5 6 62 7 4 5 26 57 74, 2. 21.5 30STERLING 31 4 0 Se 2 5 7 ea 6' 5. 55 IN 31 84 2. 22.2 16STONINCTON 156 4 9 7. 87 6 4 7 76 8 6 it .34 76 86 4 27.4 8STRATFORD 435 2 9 7 64 6 3. 6v 7 71.8 4 57 34 48 82.3' 24.8 13SUFFIELD 125 4 9. 6 87 5 3. 66 7 78 . 5. 51 34 73 87 3' 25.0 9TIOULSTON 64 4 9 79 4 2 60 7. 67 7 3 52 35 42 81 3. 21.5 27THOMPSC41 107 4 9 1. 84 5 77 7 81 7 4 70 29 67 84 4. 24.4 9TOI_L.AJ 147 5 9 8 83 6 63 77 7 5 79 41 73 84 5. 26.9 7TORRIMTON 2S.. 3 9' V 90 6 4. 66 8 77 4 51 36 46 85 3' 26.2 7TROMDOLL 349 2 9' 7 87 6' 3 74 - 8 81 41 74 87 4 26.9

4 INS Camarc4cut Nam MAN el (41.0.44K. NI NM* maned. Ponta4 111 DI t1544 Swim of Myrna.

03 ItAl

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTTed...V.1111" nr1/1"Irt HEMATICS 1 F

S L U M .I It I NINO I CR V TESTINGfma rfwvnmogOBJECTIVES TESTED

CONCEPTUAL UNDERSTANDINGS COMPUTATIONALSKILLSTOTAL

MATHEMATICS

PAGE 5

0.- 0.. la, ', % lii:. cla cb 'c, lir lid 40, % 40, 4 4 '', 0'.., r, °J., .> 4

V.^ V^ *C. *17 '('CP "Q *40 *gb * '4* 44, . t, ., °0,-, '44, ''', i. a 4.0 A \el°4., % 4,_ ch. I. c'e 1, 1, % 0,, t, *v .A. v 4, 6, .A., 4 4,79y. ,, ci, 4 .0%

-°1 44 1.'0 412 44 4%, 446 .00 10 eq. 1%. PCI, °I 44;'..f.' % 4) i, ", d,

4 '.

. .0, % ^0. 10 4, 414.44 4.1, 4c,4.4, VI. .4) %1r % %, 0/ % .. 1 *0 C; tc, %.a

tVt Qv/ '%. cl4404V '4,, * 4." eo,ie.:10 ' lb % ./.a. c, % Oo It */ % 04.

DATE TESTED: 10-86 0 0. ,, ,. t, ye, ot, v_ *4 o,, /4, -T, o,. t, ,. 4:;), .t.

O 00 -.A. 4. 4 1 v '',, '1) '', "4 v 4c.. 0 4 4 9. o41, /0 0, 04 .4: i., J., % to, q; 0, 44 lo, 1, .p t 40, '; Q,,

ei- '11, 44 4, 47 '00, et, 0 I. ' %, ,,, 4417 % Q*c. ** to, .ti.Et...II,

Mastery Cnterla for each obtectiw is-t- , -, % % -1, % 24 p 0 J.

% 4-. ^J. i % 4 -0,. 4- t. % 3,43. PI 0,

3 of the 4 items correct4.0 .r ,..

3 4-

Remedial Standard is 711of the 144 items correct

IS OF

DISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVETESTED

11E5r 5 6 80 80100 80 60 80%001.00 80100 aot000.onoo 80 60 2, 80100100 80 29.6 20

VERNON 334 3 68 62 90 64 69 62 76 67 8085 67 95 92 91 58 40 50 78 71 55 24.5 72

VOLUNTOMN 22 6 59 64 86 91 73 86 95 95100%00 73 86 95 82 68 59 4- 59100 91 55 27.5 5

KALLINGFORD 437 3 61 49 92 67 67 62 78 66 87 89 71 94 96 86 57 40 4 41 83 77 48 23.8 12

HATERBURY 929 1 35 32 78 46 49 33 47 51 68 72 40 93 92 81 42 22 2' 30 61 51 34 17.6 41

HATERFORO 199 4 68 64 90 80 74 67 85 80 90 91 70 97 97 93 68 35 5 59 83 73 55 25.8 10

HATERTONN 208 2 63 70 91 74 67 sa 78 69 92 84 67 95 97 95 73 43 5. SZ 87 68 54 24.7 9

HESTBROOK 58 6 67 48 91 78 78 62 91 78 97 88 67 91 95 88 4,.. 31 2' 45 78 69 62 25.3 13

HEST HARTFORD 561 2 73 69 89 75 79 76 88 77 89 93 79 96 97 92 71 56 6 68 89 83 67 27.8 7

HEST HAVEN 364 2 67 70 89 81 73 64 oa 82 92 92 74 95 98 92 74 53 5. 68 85 79 61 25.9 8

NESTCN 141 5 70 84 97 91 83 74 89 86 90 94 87 96 94 94 75 43 5- 61 88178 64 27.6 4

NEWPORT 265 3 76 72 93 80 81 75 87 81 92 93 82 96 94 90 67 59 6 68 91 83 70 28.1 6

NETNERSFIELO 215 2 66 4889 75 73 69 82 69 93 89 66 94 94 94 62 54 5. 58 85 73 58 25.6 10

MILLINGTON 63 5 68 60 97 79 70.60 71 79 94 94 75 87100 89 56 40 4 65 79 76 60 25.6 8

HILTON 212 4 74 74 90 90 76 80 92 85 92 91 75 95 98 94 69 67 8,, 67 91 78 73 28.4 5

125 6 55 57 83 67 68 58 72 74 86 81 70 95 98 91 52 24 - 44 81 74 51 23.2 15INUNCNESTERHINDMAN 198 6 57 43 72 46 48 37 54 54 76 70'52 92 80 78 35 13 28 65 51 31 18.2 38

NIMISOR 266 2 63 54 92 64 67 66 79 80 89 91 65 94 93 89 64 40 4. 55 76 70 55 24.6 14

IKIN7SOR LOCKS 122 4 57 61 84 75 71 56 79 64 82 89 60 95 96 90 7) 34 3. 46 77 71 55 23.6 18

NOLCOIT 170 2 68 56 94 53 76 57 69 70 92 88 70 97 98 94 56 51 4 44 89 74 51 24.7 12

WOOSTOCK 62 6 49 46 87 61 61 61 59 62 90 84 69 89 92 89 40 15 1 40 84 53 50 22.6 13

REGIONAL N0.4 134 6 54 68 80 57 75 62 77 73 92 81 66 94 97 90 62 43 4' 53 79'74 59 24.9 13

REGIONAL N0.5 307 4 65%65 89 72 74 71,83 79 90 90 72 94 94 91 64 48 5 60 86 75 64 26.4 9

REGIONAL NO.6 54 6 67'67 93 85 78 72 91 87 91 93 73 93 94 93 65 54 6 54 83 65 46 26.2 2

REGIONAL NO. 7 110 6 73 67 97 73 74 75 95 82 91 94 79 95 99 95 69 47 68 9005 65 27.5 2

REGIONAL N0. 8 204 5 64 61 88 73 68 63 84 82 90 88 65 93 94 88 61 35 4, 55 81 66 61 24.9 13

REGIONAL P. 10 167 5 48 58 87 70 70 57 71 55 92 86 66 93 93 85 56 37 3 47 78 64 50 22.9 17

REGIONAL N0. 11 60 6 62 601 88 63 72 60 77 65 80 87 57 92 95 80 45 28 2 38 82 62 52 23.6 17

UN COMIKIICUI State BOK4 of fiucolsoo. All folds mono& Piloted In tho UMW UM, of Americo:.11111A2

r 107

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 8 THEMATICS 2 OF 2

DATE TESTED: 10-86

Mastery Cratarta for each objective as3 of the 4 items correct

OBJECTIVES TESTED

PROBLEM SOLVINGAND APPLICATIONS MEASUREMENT/ TOTALMATHEMATICS

PAGE 5

so, 0, eal, oly A1,,:tkeryti ti S4ii ii °I. * e , et 0. q,# /#>$ % 0gi:, 9- 9- 1, % 9- $ 4t.c'o'o

4S 1:4.4, POI'd,% 41. .. .1%,. # .0#.4.10... 4.s.ii,

4. 1 1,, S1 ., IS Se. 4. 0,4 4 41. 41. in Solid: 4 % 0 % gi' 4., 94 0 4, 0 O.- .to

14t '6 .-3 v 3 6, 4 e,

Chid'3 4 I t. 4,..t. ..:' %

io -> ° 4..

0 4, 4, .c.Remedial Standard as 78 c. % "S .3of the 144 'terns cored.

110FDISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS

TESTED MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVEUNION 5 6 10 6. 0.10 80 8. 8. 80 80 4. 8. 00 60 29.6 20VEP1424

votaltrom33422

36

9'

.6,

9

5.

6.

3'4'

6' 7882 9

8#8

5650

5582

3,

51 8.8091

4123

24.527.5

125

NALLINUFORD 437 3 9, 6' 7' 5 2 5' 81 7 7' 54 59 2 6. 81 21 23.8 12MATERSURY 929 1 9 5. . 3. 1' 3 64 5 6 29 27 10 4. 59 18 17.6 41WATERFORD 199 4 9. 7 6 4' 6- 83 7 7' 52 5714. 6. 85 42 25.8 10HATERTOHN 208 2 9' 7 8 6. 3. 6. 80 7. 8 44 55 2. 6. 84 28 24.7 9iESTBROOK 58 6 10. 7' 9' 6. 3' 7' 79 8. 7 57 73 2 6. 86 48 25.3 13HEST HARTFORD 561 2 9' 7' 9. 7. 4 7' 86 8. 8 62 77 4' 8 86 40 27.8 7NEST HAVEN 364 2 9: 8. 8. 6 2' 6. 80 6. 7 51 60 2 6. 79 31 25.9 8NESTON 141 5 9' 7. 8' 6. 4' 82 8. 8. 53 72 4 7. 89 41 27.6 4PESTPORT 265 3 9' 8. 6- 4 83 8' 62 74 4' 7' 84 40 28.1 6NETNER5FIELD 215 2 10. 6 6 3. 81 77 7 7' 51 64 3. 71 83 33 25.6 10MILLINGTON 63 5 9: 7. 7, 5 3' 7. 87 7# 9' 56 60 3. 7: 97 22 25.6 8HILTON 212 4 9' 7' 9. 7 7 84 8 .: 60 79 3' 7' 85 43 28.4 5HINCHESTER 125 6 9 7 7 4 2' 6 82 7. 7 55 60 1 7. 76 23 23.2 15HINDMAN 198 6 9 5' 6 2' 2 62 5' 6. 30 44 1. 5 70 26 18.2 38NIND50R 266 2 9' 7 8 6. 4. 6 73 7 7. 46 62 3. 6. 7 41 24.6 14NINOSOR LOCKS 122 4 9 6: 8' 5. 2 6: 70 7. 7 45 57 2 7# 75 25 23.6 18MX= 170 2 0 5' 3 5' 84 7. 8. 61 47 2 6' 85 42 24.7 12NODOSTOCK 62 6 O. 6. 7 4' 2' 7. 77 7 7 61 63 3. 8 87 23 22.6 13REGIONAL NO. 4 134 6 0 8 4' 3. 6' 81 7; 8 54 71 3' 7. 89 36 24.9 13REGIONAL NO. 5 307 4 10. 7. 6 4' 7. 8E 7 8 58 72 3 7 88 4T 26.4 9REGIONAL NO. it 54 6 10. 7. 8' 6' 3 8. 78 7. 8 54 63 3- 6' 87 33 26.2 2REGIONAL NO. 7 110 6 10. 7 9- 6 5, 7 86 7 9. 43 82 4. 8' 88 55 27.5 2REGIONAL NO. 8 204 5 9' 6. 8. 5' 4' 7 77 7. 7' 47 72 3' 6* 82 47 24.9 13REGIONAL NO. 10 167 5 9' 5' 81 4 2' 5 77 7. 7: 41 53 2' 6 83 23 22.9 17REGIONAL. NO. 11 60 6 10. 6- 58 4. 6. 78 7' 8. 48 77 3. 71 85 47 23.6 17

0 INS Como:Ova Stet 8 .rd of Weals:es Allrights reserved. Pnreed in the Untied States of Aznincs

109108

0317A3

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 8 MATHEMATICS 1 OF

DATE TESTED: 10-86

Mastery Criteria for each objective Is3 of the 4 items correctRemedial Standard is 71ot theta items correct.

OBJECTIVES TESTED


MATHEMATICS

PAGE 6

°I, % '64 S % 'ci c°4, col, 4 4. 44. % % Qc& C Vk, c'.4 ..t/ .4.1 43.^I, °- I; 447 ct1 .1:1)4 to' Q* °;,

.0 ck, -4 .1.. it, a 41. ?it a. 40 ect, c.a. 1...) C.,, od,

% °04. 410, gdo *c. ii 64 *cr 6414 Qii l' '401 4e01. ,...4- le cro 15;:i, cS, oo. 'co_ ts.

-'4, la, '''. 11.4 g/oIt 0,S. 6 . op 40 t. 40 164 4,% 4 40, 4# 4 c'e /4. 4'1.0-4., 10 4,,,,, 0, -f ** 1:r % 4 0, % 4- * iPi, .0. 40 -. , p,

ir %.. 4, 4. *, ti 4 % , I. I?It eq, -4.40 0. '00,, % 4 oc. 61 oc, eV* ,,,. 1, **,,, #

0%

't 1 .ri, ii' %,. % 'kip (4- 13 6 Cil CP 4% , 40, ty, 0 4i, ..:, s ii,_ 'h,, 0 il,-44 1,, -9 ' "kt

DISTRICT# OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS M.'STERING EACH OBJECTIVE

REGIONAL NO. 12REGIONAL NO. 13REGIONAL HO. 14REGIONAL NO. 15REGIONAL NO. 16REGIONAL NO. 17REGIONAL NO. 18

6910610621813016183

6544466

72565667486963

546675725259sa

97869293859495

2

80928159597184

71757473

7482

81706873566267

80-7848587788165

747572717170

90929194928790

88909191aa9092

1618180586963

VT949795939392

99f

989898939899

90929393789398

;

6;

66-46.

71

3343744163741

41283944153553

51705755504859

110-72

898988678476

728483557078

576753595254J52

26.025.225.626.021.825.425.7

6108718148

ttliCearecticia SW, awl or Ellocaueo. All litho moaned. Pfbood In go WOWSUMS of Mork&0311A3ill

a.STATE BY DISTRICT REPORT

F.6711171. WW1 11,11716,1 161,1111,01uw.wv.,,,,

DATE TESTED: 10-e6

1.4astery Critena for each objective Is3 tat the 4 items correctRemedial Standard is 78of the 144 items correct

--- _OBJECTIVES TESTED

PROBLEM SOLVING AND APPLICATIONS ME4s.SUREMENT/GEOMETRY

TOTALMATHEMATICS

PAGE 6

0 4"°o ,..) 0 o, 'to ' 4 9

t 0...6''' .,0e

i e 1dd

4*

1*0

O f 0 1 4.÷" '0 0

1.0 ^

Vo *P4s 0/a; , 1._ .4 1'. 4 Vd. 66

0 r0 lb 1.4. 111, .2,4 0, 4 . ,t, 0, 4 -, , .3/4. 0 . 4,, 2 .. 4 q. e- ..

6., *0 0 o 4 ''e. %.,, 7s, 4 ,40 .-t, 4

e .? 4.1,' ' , ':t... ,. /,,'6_

O ' e J-o. !s.

DISTRICT# OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTSMASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

REGIONAL W. 12REGIONAL N0. 13REGIONAL N0. 14REGIONAL Na. 15REGIONAL NO. 16REGIONAL N0. 17REGIONAL NO. 18

6910610621813016183

6

54

446

6

971

iod9

9

9

961

9

71

74

70

66

656666

961

848a8

GIl

Gti

9

56247

57455867

4527

37

322435

3365

7

to63

676569

88781

8476

881.

8679

80

74

66

75

75

GA7077

8375

8587

64651

54425846.

7763

5861

4968

75

3426

2e33le

484C

6472

72

71

57

7177

873

8983

849286

5429

363325

4237

26.025.225.626.0

21.825.425.7

610

87

18148

C 1901 Connecticut $t Boyd ol Education All nghts reserved. Printed In the United States of America.

or

113

an-

T MASTERY TESTING RA

STATE B'r DISTRICT REPCRTTZADE 8 MATHEMATICS 1 OF

OBJECTIVES TESTED


MATHEMA 'ICS

PAGE 7

Oe 0. 0 '''.0 *),,, 4 0 t. 4 174 0 0) CZ., re re .recE, /d... cr.,. '', % 'ca.

0 44.* ..bo 4/ % 'i. 4- iz. 4:4-0/'It, 3 Isd od_ - Cf ? 1' i ct, o_ Nylz, °I,.. 01, Veo4.40 ck ''10 ° (.40 Pcbe° °/ ) a % '* .). %P.+ PAs0"5>% %0 % % a 0

°'sIt ''t ° ;'''' e <1:1, ..re S c' *% S, '4 ce q'ts ° e't c/ '''%isd 'co

DATE TESTED: 10-86o , ,..0 %

/0eo 4. c, % 0c, 0 eo 40 6... 0....:i.

...4. 1.0 4., % -, 0 4 4,,, Cr, 40, s 413, o 0. '0 ,,, % *. ' 0, '400 1:4 *o. 4,,11, 1, *) 4, 14'04.4.. o i>. 4, o 4 oo, ,,, i 4/'

Oi4et '61) 4-04. 12' .4.0 % 4.6 0 / 0 c, %, 4'o Q,, *-4. c'c''erMa story Crileria for each objective Is

3 el tm 4 'twin correct

t - / i c'o % %le 3 %13. % '%. 4... eo 40, -4. - % 06

., 1,.. l,

Remechal Standard Is nol the 144 it..rns correct

# OFDISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

TOC 1 TOTAL 4,933 38 36 75 40 49130 53 62 70 71 42 93 92 84 48 21 26 10.59 53 32 17.6 42

TOC 2 TOTAL 6,416 66 63 90 70 72 66 8) 75 89 90 70 95 96 91 64 48 53 57 83 73 58 25.4 11

TOC 3 TOTAL 7,403 55 53 87 61 64 55 72 70 84 84 61 94 94 88 59 36 43 45 76 68 48 22.9 18

TOC 4 TOTAL 6,291 66 69 91 79 75 49 84 77 91 90 7 94 96 92 65 46 51 57 86 76 59/ 26.2

TOC 5 TOTAL 3,403 64 66 90 77 73 6 83 78 91 91 72 95 96 91 63 44 48 58 84 73 58* 25.7

TOC 4 TOTAL 2,386 6 60 88 66 68 6 174,73 87 86 66 93 94 88 56 37 40 49 78 67 51 24.0 15

STATE TOTAL 30,832 581 58 87 66 67 58174 72 85 85 64 94 95 89 60 39 44 4? 74 6? 51 23.7 17

Inecom..ocu Stra Dowd 01 Etuunan All Herts .0Nra.0 Prontoil 0100 Una00 States 01 Amor co, ,----.

115031114

- -..."-;;;, - ^

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORT

DATE TESTED: 10-84

Maury Cntana for each °tetchy* is3 el the 4 darns corrsctRentedral Standard is 73al Dr 144 rterns correct.

....OBJECTIVES TESTED

iyirk, litlywi I IUJ L Ur L

PROBLEM SOLVING AND APPUCATIONS MEASUREMENT/GEOMETRY

TOTALMATHEMATICS

PAGE 7

.6,...,0, % % tr4 ,. :,,. % % ee 41.#..1. ' i , 40 i. Li, ', Pt, *4., 41 40

1 : 443 410 i % %9 . -- -4 ,,f,. t..... ,VI, .41::. 4:2 '14: % °,,, it. .' N NO

44' 46 4 6 0,. tt, 9

*4'. % 1r, IA 90 4: 1, 1.11, -``e. 90 .44.,.

q S. w% *.i. ''is 4 02, \NI,.o'0. .

o 4/, 4, 00 'It;t A

rel. 0A-94o, 1,11,1., 700 *0 A04.1,

4 4.. .1......., .°41, 4,

'4/. '4 'k 4. %4,c_ 4 'cl e

46e._ %,,

*-, %4, "t,

00 *h., .1. Cf.- ,,, 4..... .3

DISTRICT/0 OF

STUDENTSTESTED

TOC SCORES INDICATE THE PERCENTMASTERING EACH

OF STUDENTSOBJECTIVE

TOC 1 TOTAL

TOC 2 TOTAL

TOC 3 TOTAL

TOC TOTAL

TOC 5 TOTAL

TOC 6 TOTAL

STATE TOTAL

4,933

6.416

7,403

6,291

3,403

2,386

304132

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

56

7

65

72

70

67

67

S4

76

88

86

Be

74

37

62

51

62

68

52

54

15

35

Ze

4C

3

33

3

35

6a

59

'70

70

65

61

5

a

7

8

a

7

7

50

n6t3

78

76

72

70

SS

81

74

83

81

77

76

28

53

44

53

50

49

46

3

6

5

66

65

66

57

15

34

27

37

35

70

30

4a

70

61

7Z

71

66

63

6.

8

7

8"

8

8 '

7;

161

36

29

41

38

35

32

17.6

25.4

22.9

26.2

25.7

24.0

23.7

42

11

18

9

15

17

um CamorMo4 WO Sore al Latototo Au NNW toconfol Pots 11 d u 1 the UNio SWAB NA/roma

117

APPENDIX I

State by District Report - October 1986,

Grade Eight Language Arts Test Results

118

ri

119

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 3

OBJECTIVES TESTED TOTALLANGUAGE

ARTS

DEGREES OFREADING

POWER (ORP)WRITING SAMPLE PAGE 1

MUTING LOCATING LISTENINGMECHANICS INFORMATION COMPREHENSIONc READING

COMPREHENSION

\-- -%-SO $ # , v , V la 0 as . '''' 0 V ÷

-.2 - r.14: 9i

6 14

ill# etIA

'N.% 1.

t- % 4, t la d't li0,DATE TESTED: 10 -86 4. S, l 1,# 4

I!,°...

-...#

MASTERY CRITERIA(Y CORRECT/ N POSSIBLE) 9/12 6/8 11115 3/4 9/12 3/4 3/4 12/16 6/8 1W14 10/14

N OFDISTRICT STUDENTS TO, SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

ANSCNIA 127 5 74 68 74 80 84 77 51 64 67 44 45 7.3 3 17'51 61 3. 12 10/38 16 12 9' 4 4.E 21

ASHFORD 46 6 85 76 83 80 91 76 74 83 78 50 59 8.3 17 17 65 64 1 0 0 24 26 22 17 11 5.7 C

AVON 150 4 88 . 81 93 89 94 89 76 79 88 77 83 9.4 12 11 77 68 1 2 3 11 25 27 22 9 5.E E.

BERLIN 161 4 81 74 84 83 92 80 58 76 77 59 61 8.3 16 17 66 64 16 6 11 39 16 18 7 3 4.t 17

BETHEL 191 4 82 73 86 85 92 87 69 76 80 69 69 8.7 16 15 70 65 1 2 17 24 21 21 14 5.6 3

BLOOMFIELD 170 2 58 70 72 78 80 61 54 66 70 51 57 7.2 31 18 50 58 31 7 9 22 22 15 15 10 5.3 It

.BOLTON 45 4 84 73 91 89 86 89 69 76 78 76 64 8.8 20 7 73 65 20 2 7 22 27 27 11 4 5.2 5

60ZRAN 18 5 83 67 94 61 83 67 61 67 72 50 78 7.8 22 11 67 64 2 0 0 39 28 28 6 0 5.0 C

BRANFORD 233 4 81 71 84 82 86 83 67 66 75 60 66 8.2 26 11 64 62 26 3 2 16 20 24 19 7.:. 5.f !

BRIDGEPORT 1,030 1 54 52 54 61 66 54 43 32 52 24 28 5.3 54 18 28 53 54 9 17 28 22 13 7 3 4.4 27

BRISTOL 575 3 75 65 77 78 79 73 54 62 65 51 55 7.3 24 20 56 61 2 9 14 26 21 13 14 4 4. 2!

BROOKFIELD 190 4 84 75 85 79 88 80 72 79 80 69 71 8.6 18 13 69 64 1: 5 9 24 28 17 10 7 5.0 14

BROOKLYN 89 6 .69 64 78 75 76 55 44 52 66 45 45 6.7 38 19 43 58 3: 2 8 25 2. 25 13 0 5.0 1C

CANAAN 11 6 82 73 100 100 91 82 82 45 73 55 82 8.6 0 36 64 65 0 0 9 18 36 9 9 18 54 5

CANTERBURY 67 6 90 73 87 75 88 82 79 73 78 69 69 8.6 25 9 66 63 2 3 29 15 24 9 18 5.6 A

CANTON 75 4 87 83 93 89 100 85 80 83 87 87 72 9.5 4 11 85 70 '4 5 4 23 17 25 19 7 5. 4

CHESHIRE 323 2 85 85 92 84 95 85 79 86 87 76 74 9.3 10 10 80 69 10 2 7 14 16 22 19 19 5.8 5

CLINTON 161 5 88 69 84 84 88 79 75 75 74 60 63 8.4 23 17 60 61 2 9 14 28 20 19 8 2 4.6 23

COLCHESTER 108 5 65 78 78 77 81 69 64 61 67 59 62 7.6 21 14 65 63 21 6 5 19 19 24 16 13 5.E 1CCOLUZIA 39 5 77 64 85 87 90 85 62 82 74 59 59 8.4 21 15 64 63 21 0 11 14 28 29 11 14 5.t 11CORMALL 6 6 100 100 100 100 100 1C0 100 100 100 100 100 11.0 0 0100 75 0 0 17 0 17 33 33 0 5.7 17COVENTPY 126 4 79 68 83 79 85 81 53 67 70 60 60 7.8 18 tz 60 63 1 5 4 15 la 16 a 14 s.7 t

CROMELL 97 4 84 71 81 78 86 76 58 69 74 61 65 8.1 23 13 64 61 23 5 13 36 16 21 4 4 4.6 15

0A1EURY 563 3 65 61 69 72 82 70 54 56 62 46 45 6.9 35 17 48 58 3r 9 12 21 26 17 9 6 4.E 21

OARIEN 205 2 87 82 96 86 94 82 81 80 81 75 84 9.3 9 12 78 68 2 2 22 32 17 16 10 5.! '

DERBY 95 5 65 69 72 64 80 62 56 48 72 39 39 6.7 42 17 41 56 42 6 8 23 20 14 18 11 5.2 IE

EASTFORO 10 6 100 50 90 80 80 80 70 70 70 30 50 7.7 20 SO 30 62 20 0 0 20 60 0 20 0 5.2 C

EAST GRAhBY 51 4 82 73 82 82 88 71 78 82 78 57 65 8.4 18 8 75 65 1' 0 8 18 28 20 10 16 5.E e

IL $U C00 wocbc,M1 Slat. Bawd 01 touci4011 All fIghts msolvtd. Nutted Hi U.SA.

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 8-

DATE TESTED: 10-86


ARTS

DEGREES OFREADING

POWER (DRP)WRITING SAMPLE PAGE 2WRITING LOCATING

MECHANICS INFORMATIONLISTENING

COMPREHENSIONREADING

COMPREHENSION

4,,\ I Si) 144 *14, VG.,

ib 1 l'w 64/k 1:> I

VS gik li-o-

1> .t. %ii, 144 11'

V:\ 1.%::\

1:. 4.(6, I:

I,- S .4>

Tpcs

/;i. 11-

sto %S $

' ,. t.11_ cl

ctt..1, ck,:i

MASTERY C.RITERIA( is CORRECT/ # POSSIBLE) 9/12 6/8 11/15 3/4 9/12 3/4 3/4 12/16 6/8 10/14 10/14

a OfDISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

EAST HADDAM 71 5 83 70 79 72 9 62 .8 3 65 .9 24 59 61 24 1 8 27 27 14 15 7 5.7 14ALF HAMPTON 104 5 86 62 90 83 88 77 70 75 71 65 72 8.4 25 19 56 61 25 21 26 24 17 5 0 4.4 26EAST HARTFORD 348 2 69 62 73 76 84 70 52 63 68 51 51 7.3 Z9 22 49 59 29 f 13 31 22 18 7 3 4.6 2CEAST HAVEN 167 r 64 63 74 74 79 63 58 59 62 37 46 6.8 34 17 45 58 34 1G 12 31 20 17 8 2 4.3 22EAST CYNE 185 4 80 72 86 85 93 84 62 68 83 75 77 8.7 19 14 68 64 19 5 6 23 25 18 16 6 5.2 11EASTON 77 4 75 87 87 86 92 78 66 71 82 73 77 8.7 16 16 68 65 16 0 4 21 22 22 16 16 5.7 4EAST NINDSOR 87 4 65 60 81 67 87 71 52 55 71 51 52 7.1 21 25 54 61 21 9 6 29 32 15, 6 2 4.6 14ELLINGTON 114 4 85 82 85 90 97 84 76 75 8c 68 69 8.9 7 16 77 68 7 2 6,21 19110 24 10 5.6 6ENFIELD , 459 3 68 63 80 79 83 73 53 60 65 51 50 7.3 28 14 58 60 28 71st 28 24 15' 8 2 4.6 22FAIRFIELD 398 2 84 75 87 87 91 85 66 80 81 70 71 8.8 17 17 66 64 17 2 7 18 25 20 18 10 5.3 iFARMINGTON 162 4 77 78 91 90 98 90 68 72 90 82 75 9.1 6 11 33 69 6 1 1 15 12 22 25 24 6.2 2FRANKLIN 28 5 75 71 79 64 96 82 54 71 75 50 54 7.7 21 25 54 61 21 0 4 0 22 19 22 33 6.6 4GLASTONBURY 32Z 4 88 71 92 85 94 84 74 84 85 80 82 9.2 9 13 78 69 9 1 3 19 20 17 25 15 5.2 4GRANBY 112 4 76 69 86 79 94 85 67 71 79 71 72 8.5 12 13 76 67 12 4 9 29 17 19 14 9 5.2 13GREENNUCH 434 2 80 77 87 84 89 82' 69 76 82 71 73 8.7 16 11 73 65 16 2 4 19 19 27 18 10 5.6 7GRISNOLD 102 4 78 56 70 71 80 72 52 51 71 43 53 7.0 38 17 45 58 3845 21 20 27 9 9 0 4.2 36GROTON 368 3 76 65 75 74 83. 73 57 61 76 54 52 7.5 29 15 55 60 29'12 11 33 18 14 8 3 4.3 24GUILFORD 246 4 83 73 87 82 88 80 70 71 77 67 69 8.5 15 15 70 64 15 2 3 22 23 23 14 11 5.3 £HAAGEN 341 2 65 67 76 72 82 70 51 54 72 56 62 7.3 31 21 48 58 31 7 9 27 22 15 10 10 5.6 16HARTFORD 1,304 1 45 46 43 60 66 47 41 32 46 21 27 4.7 55 18 27 52 55 15 20 28 19 10 7 2 4.2 33HARTLAND 14 6 93 71 100 79 93 86 79 100 93 71 71 9.4 14 14 71 67 14 7 29 29 14 7 7 7 4.4 36KENT 37 6 86 84 83 89 100 89 84 62 83 86 81 9.3 8 11 81 70 6 0 0 6 14 88 35 19 6.4 l,

KILLIWLY 182 6 69 60 72 71 74 65 55 55 67 42 53 6.8 30 14 56 60 30 9 17 36 13 15 6 3 4.4 27LEBANON 80 4 69 61 71 75 75 73 59 59 68 49 56 7.2 32 15 53 59 32 6 10 25 23 13 17 5 5.2 17LEDYARD 229 4 78 75 76 83 90' 78 69 79 73 64 67 8.3 28 14 59 61 28 4 6 26 22 18 16 8 5.2 11LISBON 50 4 80 78 84 86 92 68 56 70 74 60 66 8.1 20 16 64 63 20 0 14 30 14 16 18 8 5.2 14LITCHFIELD 78 6 70 57 78 78 87 89 64 69 76 62 64 8.0 23 14 63 62 23 11 5 30 18 16 12 8 4.1 16MADISON 213 5 90 83 92 88 88 85 76 80 81 71 74 9.1 15 12 72 67 15 1 3 19 30 21 18 9 5.6 4

6 INA Connouical Slaw Boon of I ducouon An nets rourrot finnan in U.S A.

121 /22

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 8 NGUA3EART

DATE TESTED: 10-86


ARTS

DEGREES OFREADING

POWER (ORP)WRITING SAMPLE

I PAGE 3WRITING LOCATING LISTENING READING

MECHANICS INFORMATION COMPREHENSION COmpRFNEHMCw

It - \ \ Ii, 4:1.0 % ,... I% 9.7, T.,, N. \. 4%

417,11 'SO c6;1. et. % N. t,

C)P.:30 * 0/P 9"). 16i 1.#1.31. (0 ":" t. 't4 i,

1).. ; .ri.:9- %... It.0 1.

0 -D, 1 0- 1:.% 414,

°4-0

1ie. ie.

,, -004.4 os

4.4ASIV:Y CRITERIA(sCORREclusPoSSiBLE) WU 4/8 MMS W4. en2 W4 W4 12/16 6/8 MR4 10M4

8OFDISTRICT STU0ENTS TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STU0ENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

MECHEM 485 3 /7 65 78 82 84 79 61 63 67 54 59 7.7 28 13 59 61 28 6 7 30 23 16 11 6 4.5 11MANSFIELD 108 6 70 64 77 76 85 79 72 75 80 72 76 8.3 18 11 71 67 18, 6 5 n 15 21 21 20 5.6 10MERIDEN 490 3 69 64 70 74 79 70 52 56 69 49 56 7.1 2Z 18 60 62 22 8 12 32 20 14 10 4 4.6 2C

MIDDLETONN 362 3 67 57 70 74 79 65 49 54 67 44 47 6.7 41 19 40 57 41 9 10 33 18 14 14 3 4.7 15

MILFOFD 459 3 74 69 77 83 87 76 65 71 74 54 55 7.9 21 18 61 63 21 4 11.20 22 19 16 8 5.2 lENZINROE 258 4 87 74 86 80 84 72 63 67 72 58 59 8.0 16 21 64 64 16 4 6 23 25 17 16 9 5.2 1113NTV1LLE 223 4 69 66 84 80 92 81 60 73 70 55 55 7.9 25 17 59 62 25 2 9 28 22 24 10 6 5.1 13

NAUGATUCK 315 2 65 64 75 79 85 73 44 49 70 39 46 6.9 33 18 49 58 33 4 11 28 24 19 9 5 4.5 lENEW BRITAIN 416 3 57 53 55 64 76 64 48 35 55 33 39 5.8 40 20 40 57 40 14 20 33 18 9 5 1 4.3 34NEW CANAAN 216 2 83 80 87 81 90 84 72 86 81 75 74 8.9 17 8 75 67 17 2 3 13 16 30 19 17 5.1 6

NEW FAIRFIELD 202 4 82 75 82 78 87 73 72 74 80 60 67 8.3 20 14 66 63 20 X 3 16 31 27 12 7 5.4 6

NEW HAVEN 1,021 1 46 49 44 54 64 41 39 27 47 23 24 4.6 62 16 22 50 62 22 20 28 17 8 3 1 3.0 42NENINGTON 296 2 86 75 87 86 94 85 73 74 85 72 71 8.9 11 11 77 68 11 4 9 17 22 23 17 8 5.3 11

HEN LONDON 163 3 70 65 66 72 75 57 50 46 63 44 51 6.6 45 25 30 56 45 11 15 25 22 11 9 7 4.6 26

NEW MILFORO 287 5 83 74 86 89 92 81 60 64 78 63 64 8.3 17 13 70 64 17 3 10 31 23 15 14 5 5.0 1Z

NEKTONIC 266 5 81 71 88 83 93 81 70 79 81 73 74 8.7 14 15 71 67'14 2 5 2.5 31 18 10 8 5.2 E

NORTH BRANFORD 148 4 72 68 82 79 88 84 62 55 74 56 59 7.8 24 16 60 62 24 15 13 27 23 12 7 34.4 2e

NORTH CANAAN 38 6 76 71 82 76 87 84 63 63 71 55 74 8.0 13 16 71 64 13 0 13 39 21 16 5 5 4.6 1Z

NORTH HAVEN 212 2 75 73 79 80 87 72 59 67 70 53 53 7.7 18 28 55 62 le. 8 13 33 19' 18 6 3 4.6 21NORTH STONING-MN 65 5 72 65 86 77 88 74 65 72 66 68 66 8.0 26 18 55 63 26 5 6 17 25 22 13 13 5.4 11NORHALK 669 3 61 59 66 71 71 60 47 43 62 40 44 6.2 45 17 3b 55 45 10 13 24 23 14 10 5 4.7 2:NORKICH 365 3 73 58 76 75 89 76 54 59 68 55 57 7.4 29 16. S6 60 29 0 11 30 23 14 11 1 4.7 1'OLD SAYBROOK 105 5 80 74 84 89 88 76 65 70 70 65 64 8.2 17 19 64 63 17 10 10 29 18 20 11 3 4.7 15

OXFORD 85 5 88 81 89 71 87 ea 67 72 86 65 61 8,5 19 13 68 65 19 0 6 24 31 19 16 5 5.2 6

PLAINFIELD 165 6 62 53 71 68 78 62 47 56 51 31 38 6.2 36 22 42 58 36 3 10 27 18 20 12 9 5.3 1.1

PLAINVILLE 177 4 63 58 75 74 79 63 53 53 66 47 56 6.9 30 20 50158 30 6 22 26 zs 11 6 3 4.4 2E

PLYMOUTH 162 2 61 59 75 78 80 67 51 55 72 41 46 6.9 33 18 4 59 33 4 7 30 25 16 13 4 4.5 12

POMFRET 32 6 81 69 94 78 94 84 69 84 78 66 69 8.7 13 11 7 67 13 3 6 13 25 16 19 19 5.4 c

C *1$ connct.cyt Mat. 60411 et Manton. All nines ntserend. Pnened In USA.

124

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTT

,.....r..... OBJECTIVES TESTED TOTALLANGUAGE

DEGREES OFREAMNO WRITING SAMPLE

lal.,,,,,74 ,1, ...?

PAGE 4WRITING LOCATING USTENING READINGMECHANICS INFORMATION COMPRELI:NMON COMPREHENSION ARTS POWER (0RP)

%r li, ;, li, 07,4 t 7 4.. 1., 6.0 .t fr '' . V.. -s-g.

svi.

-9ityo 4* Pr iP

4.i .1 Tr 0 46 4..

°If 1>i':716, IP

t- I!. 9. tf, %DATE TESTED: 10-86 '60 0

o, 61.t

0 00\

1AAS 1 ERY CRITERIA( ii CORRECT/ # POSSIBLE) 8/I2 6/8 11/15 3/4 9/12 3/4 3/4 12/16 6/8 10/14 10/14

# orDISTRICT STUOENTS TCC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENTOFSTUCIENTSMASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

PORTLAND 93 5 78 73 86 82 87 84 67 73 76 70 76 8.5 16 15 71 6 16 4 4 17 26 30 11 7r5.3 .PRESTON 60 4 83 70 85 73 87 75 68 75 70 60 72 8.2 18 18 61 6' 14 0 7 20 23 15 13 13 5.2 ILPUTNAM 89 6 66 53 73 77 77 72 55 45 60 37 48 6.7 37 12 51 5 37 14 31 21 15 6 8 5 4.2 45REDOINGRIDGEFIELD

113306

55

9082

8379

92

90

8285

9393

8688

8072

8484

8882

76

787879

9.39.1

814

1317

7969

6

65&14

02

05

7

211925

2919

3418

1211

6.

5.52 C

ROCKY HILL 126 4 75 71 87 83 91 83 77 75 83 68 71 8.6 16 13 71 67 16 4 2 15 21 25 22 11 5.7 6SALEM 42 5 76 64 83 76 85 80 69 69 83 55 67 8.1 19 17 64 61 19 2 2 14 19 29 21 12 5.4SALISBURY 21 6 81 76 81 81 81 67 67 86 67 62 76 8.2 10 24 67 64 10 0 0 24 43 14 10 10 5.y CSEYMOUR 138 5 74 72 80 72 83 75 53 63 79 57 64 7.7 20 17 64 62 20 4 11 18 21 13 25 8 5.3 15SHARON 15 6 60 80 93 87 80 73 40 73 80 67 60 7.9 13 13 73 63 13 7 7 28 0 33 20 13 5.6 13SHELTON 314 3 80 71 83 80 82 75 61 64 73 53 55 7.8 11 19 70 65 11 5 8 29 23 19 12 4 4.1 13SHERMAN 21 6 95 52 86 90 86 86 71 67 81 71 67 8.5 19 19 62 63 19 0 5 0 10 29 3. 19 6.5 5SIMSBURY 316 4 89 84 88 79 97 85 78 87 92 80 84 9.5 6 8 86 70 6 1 4 20 22 25 2 9 5.4SCMERS 87 4 91 79 94 87 89 84 66 85 84 78 80 9.2 12 13 76 68 12 1 3 23 18 25 20 9 5.d 5SOUTHINGTON 473 3 76 69 80 81 89 77 64 68 74 55 63 8.0 23 17 60 62 23, 4 11 25 26 16 1 7 5. IrSOUTH MINDSOR 249 2 74 71 78 81 83 71 65 75 75 59 61 7.9 27 16 57 61 27 4 7 33 19 22 6 5. IISPRAGUE 27 4 89 78 89 89 96 89 81 67 74 59 74 8.9 19115 67 62 19 7 15 15 22 19 1 7 5.E 22STAFFORD 112 5 79 58 88 87 96 78 64 67 75 64 64 8.2 15 23 61 63 15 9 9 10 26 24 I. 4 4.1 lESTAFFORD 661 1 61 61 68 70 73 66 53 52 61 48 50 6.6 37 14 50 58 37 8 11 30 20 13 11 7 4. 1rSTERLING 31 6 L3 45 60 67 77 53 35 39 55 29 32 5.4 42 13 65 56 42 13 29 42 10 6 0 3.7 42STONINGTON 1'S 4 78 78 85 82 95 85 60 70 81 69 65 8.5 13 12 75 67 13 3 .8 23 20 21 1 7 5.1 12STRATFORD 435 2 76 70 80 84 89 78 59 66 78 54 63 8.0 18 17 65 63 10 5 10 24 26 20 11 5 BA 11SUFFIELD 125 4 82 75 88 86 92 85 68 71 78 62 70 8.6 1... 20 66 63 14 2 4 20 28 24 I. 7 5.4 7THOMASTON 84 4 69 '55 72 70 76 76 58 64 63 51 54 7.1 39 7 54 58 39 5 13 15 28 17 13 9 5.1 IETHOMPSON 107 6 76 70 83 78 80 71 57 67 73 59 58 7.7 11 22 66 65 11 4 0 25 21 25 1 8 S.! 4TOLLAND 147 5 82 81 86 80 88 82 67 76 82 74 73 8.7 17 12 71 64 17 3 13 20 23 21 1 8 5.2 16TCAAINGTON 237 3 81 78 85 79 91 77 60 68 76 57 56 8.1 17 15 60 64 17 6 10 24 27 14 I. 9 5.E 16TRUMBULL 350 2 78 79 85 84 90 76 70 72 74 65 65 8.4 19 15 65 64 19 5 12 22 28 17 111 5 4. 11

9 OK COANICIKJI SOW 8041A Of eduCilts0A All Iglus resenvil Pnnto9 IA U.S A.

125 126

0301A3

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTGRADE 8 N U

DATE TESTED:


ARTS

DEGREES OFREADING

POWER (DRP)WRITING SAMPLE

PAGE 5WRITING LOCATING LISTENING READING

MECHANICS INFORMATION COMPREHENSION COMPREHENSION

11 % $^ 1k 3. 1; 12. S ci 1, .(Is V ° 4. 'r " 1 ';''1 r, 14, l' I .

0. q.

$,4, ..t,

444 44 44 %\p 0: $ 4:.

tp 4,

r gt It° a,p ix .6 e

01 4'

%.400.,' 0t. S e%. 1. q. tr

10-84 0o ir

v* 4- $'la

O. ..

Cl

MASTERY CRITERIACORRECT/ POSSIBLE 9/12 6/9 11/15 9/12 3/4 3/4 12/18 6/8 10/14 10/14

DISTRICTCW

STUDENTSTESTED'

TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

5FORVERNONVOLUNTOMNALLINOFORDNATERDURYWATERFORDNATERTOHNNESTDROCKNEST HARTFORDNEST HAVENNESTONWESTPORTNETHERSFIELDHILLINGTONHILTONWINCHESTERKINDHANWINDSORWINDSOR LOCKSNOLGOTTNOOOSTOCKREGIONAL N0.4REGIONAL N0. 5REGIONAL N0. 6REGIONAL ND. 7REGIONAL NO. 8REGIONAL NO. 10REGIONAL NO. 11

53352243892319920658561363141

26521663

21212520026612217062

1343075411020416760

3

431

42

6

2

2

532

546

6

2

42

6

6

466556

...

78

91

8254738366767882818676

847043657488768386818478

66

67

0,

68

6869487070597769797172

607969506S696874757661687271

50

az828360808481867891

86829489806472798282878883828077

78

8'

7G828165848474

8581868775788176

6982747881778176

88757772

8053

1008770859078919292

9088959088728882928786878993848282

8.

7791

78538074748179868279818872

607871888572838083787878

8,

57646046675076

705672

66656870

675062586476

656761

7170

6155

00

66

0271

41

6966

64

76

5675

7765

7579

67476866

66

816770

6573

73

78

57

8070

867558737971

7770

798375838373

53757580827279768070

6763

8062

646532626948675072

73

688175543559616074S7695273575360

8061

865937666352714774

737178755338585667776971

57756053

57

9.27.89.08.15.78.18.17.48.67.68.98.78.38.78.97.75.87.77.78.38.88.18.67.88.78.07.77.2

2026

5194'1

2

2

1

31

1

2

11

14

1

42

252015282113102829

32

016101416,48171510101814

11

105

13151618121723121113131219

17

80587767

64656075527471688473683558616361.6400667477595352

72606964SE636359675967646369656353626261

65636767595960

2026519421

202,

lr

311;1

21

11

14

17492425201528211310282S,

32

0603122

516

101

23

01

9

2142

1643412

7

7

0 207 190 9

6 2120 3011 268 269 22

11 22It 264 218 216 222 178 256 37

21 2710 2117 231 1811 186 246 1619 407 167 237 277 27

018

272619

30'28222027262127242220'12141724252722142326301930

019

272410lo1116

2112212123

2220

13

1517202118196

271818

22

40 40 6.222 9 5.4 123 14 6.015 5 5.37 2 4.3 3

l;, .7- ':.4. 1

14 6 5.0 1.22 5 5.3 1.12 8 5.3 1.8 3 4.5 217 12 5.417 7 5.3 1,11 8 5.324 11 5.8 .

17 7 5.3 '

11 6 4.8 1'3 2 3.4 4.

20 13 5.4 110 1 4.2 1:24 9 5.113 3 5.0 1:19 7 is./ 1

26 16 5.88 2 4.4 215 6 5.4 ,14 8 5.316 8 5.3 1.3 5 4.2 1

I; 11M4 Conftercol UM Bova of Educatan NI non ratorood. Proud 111 U.SA

128

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORT

I AlJrlinrc Lk RTC

DATE TESTED:


ARTS

DEGREES OFREADING

POWER (DRP)WRITING SAMPLE

11,,,e, 1W, (Al 1 V V

PAGE 6WRITING LOCATING USTENING READINGICS IN MATION COMPREHENSION COMPREHENSION

1lSt'ec \

No t"10-06 e0 b.y

\ \11) ii,

l' \ \ 's y OP\+.3-% Vci-4%

Vi. 0 .1. 4,,,tr ./.tI. 9- '416 %. 2,2. I,* ..%

q̂, 1 : a.

},,i,.

MASTERY GAITER!'f A CORRECT/ $ POSSIBLE) $112 4/8 LUIS 3/4 W12 14 3/4 12116 6A) 10/14 10/t4

DISTRICT STUDENTSDENTSTESTED

TOG SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

REGIONAL NO. 13REGIONAL NO. 14REGIONAL NO. 15REGIONAL NO. 16REGIONAL NO. 17REGIONAL NO. 16

10610621813016183

544466

807776707372

627375626577

728387838988

778583757873

919194838389

757785687376

725567576565

727070676667

797983677367

676368525754

8677072306964

. ,

8.18.28.67.37.97.9

0151514361617

1

21'

11.1I.

:167'7

6.6

. .

646567596465

1136161 1

Z440

14105

9162015262422

02227181E11627'20

2z232221

1723

4251627161822

1

6

1

.g1

5.65.!6.4.5.;.5

7

61

2211

t INS CAA/WAAL* Sur SW. al EIRAlta0A A/1 rites rwivell. Pnr4.4 cr U SA.

03C4A3

STATE BY DISTRICT REPORTLANGUAGE ARTS

......,Inusevnek, T1 III 21.W11,1,22.1.1,,,, ffl

OBJECTIVES TESTED TOTAL DEGREES OF PAGE 7

WRITING LOCATING LISTENING READING LANGUAGE READING WRITING SAMPLE

MECHANICS INFORMATION COMPREHENSION COMPREHENSION ARTS POWER (DRP)*

\ % 144.% c 'V +

4' Ikt \\ \:',% 1), 4414,

(lel'tI, 94 I" m 1.

v- -... 4.S .4.

DATE TESTED: 10-84 *,, 11 S1)

-, Ix

GI 4

t fe

MASTERY CRITERIA( I CORRECT/ # FOSS 81E1

S/12 WS 11/15 3/4 $/12 3/4 3/4 12/1 la 10/14 10/14

sofDISTRICT STUDENTS TOC SCORES REPRESENT THE PERCENT OF STUDENTS MASTERING EACH OBJECTIVE

TESTED

Toe 1 TOTAL . 4,939 31 . 60 52 61 67 51 43 36 52 28r 32 5.3 3 17 32 5 5 14/18 2' 1 10 7 3 4.1' 3

Toe z TOTAL 6,403 76 72 82 81 88 78 63 49 76 41 63 8.1 2 15 %4 6 21 5 9 2 7 19 13 6 5.1 1

TOC 3 TOTAL . . 7,426 72 64 75 77 83 72 56 59 68 51 54 7.3 2. 17 55 6. 2; 7 11 2. 2 16 12 5 4.E 2.

TOC 4 TOTAL 6.293 80 73 85 82 90 81 66 72 78 66 68 8.4 1. 14 68 6 1 4 7 2. 2 20 17 9 5.2 1.

TOC 5 TOTAL 3,404 80 73 85 81 88 80 67 73 76 65 67 8.3 1' 15 656 1. 4 7 2 2 1 15 6 5.2 1

TOC 6 TOTAL 2,390 71 64 79 76 83 73 62 64 70 53 59 7.6 2 26'60 6. 24 6 20 2 2 13 7 5.0 1

STATE TOTAL 30,855 72 66 76 77 83 73 59 62 70 54 57 7.5 2 16 57 6 2 7 10 . 2 1 13 7 5.c 1

t 1144 C4.0441 Mm. Bout GS tevcsuow. AN How 'MINN iwaw Ul USABILAILI

* DRP TOTALS DO NOT INCLUDE WEST HAVEN DATA.

132

APPENDIX J

Type of Community Classifications

133

-89-

TYPE OF COMMUNITY

TOC 1 = LARGE CITY - a town with a population of more than 100,000.

TOC 2 = FRINGE CITY - a town contiguous with a large city, and with apopulation over 10,000.

TOC 3 =MEDILM CITY - a town with a population between 25,000 and 100,000 andnot a Fringe City.

TOC 4 = MALL TOWN (Suburban) - a town within an SMSA* with a population ofless than 25,000, not a Fringe City.

TOC 5 = SMALL TOWN (Emerging Suburban) - a town with a population of less than25,000 included in what was a proposed 1980 SMSA but not included in a

1970 SMSA.

TOC 6 = SMALL TOWN (Rural) - a town not included in an SMSA, with a populationof less than 25,000.

*Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area

-90-

134

1-;

2

tr

,

PARTICIPATION RATES FOR EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS BY DISTRICTSCHOOL, YEAR 1986-1987

DISTRICT3,,!':,

TOTALEIGHTH-GRADEPOPULATION

STUDENTSELIGIBLE

FOR TESTING

PERCENT OF STUDENTPOP EXEMPT

FROM TESTING

PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE STUDENTS TESTED

MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE ARTS WRITING READINGS

ANSONIA 132 127 3.8 98.4 98.4 100.0 99.2

ASHFORD 47 46 2.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0,:

AVON 151 150 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0:;

:BERLIN 171 165 3.5 97.0 97.0 97.6 97.6_'

'IETHEL 201 185 8.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.02

BLOOMFIELD 173 167 3.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01

BOLTON 47 45 4.3 100.0 97.8 100.0 100.0*

SOZRAH 18 18 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0,,.;

'BRANFORD 237 235 0.8 94.9 95.3 99.6 94.511

RIDGEPORT 1206 1080 10.4 92.7 90.8 94.1 93.2

RISTOL 562 562 0.0 99.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

1ROOKFIELD 193 191 1.0 98.4 99.5 99.5 99.5',-,

.;BROOKLYN 91 91 0.0 96.7 97.8 97.8 97.8:r

-PAHAAH 12 11 8.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01

"'CANTERBURY 68 67 1.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0;

',CANTON 76 73 3.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01

CHESHIRE 334 328 1.8 98.5 98.5 98.5 98.5;

'CLINTON 178 161 9.6 98.8 98.8 100.0 99.42

g,COLCHESTER 115 108 6.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0)-

1C0LUMBIA 40 39 2.5 100.0 100.0 89.7 100.0;,

AORNWALL 3 6 25.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

kCOVENTRY 125 122 2.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

tCROMWELL 99 92 7.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0,i

DANBURY 621 561 9.7 93.4 95.0 100.0 97.5':'

xDARIEN 223 205 8.1 100.0 99.5 100.0 99.5,

-DERBY 101 99 2.0 96.0 96.0 97.0 96.0:.

EASTFORD 12 10 16.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.E

;EAST GRANBY 50 50 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

<,EAST HADDAMvEAST HAMPTON

74117

73105

1.410.3

95.999.0

97.393.1

97.399.0

97.3199.0-:

EAST HARTFORD 390 359 7.9 96.4 91.9 99.4 94.2,,

,EAST HAVEN 196 169 13.8 98.8 98.8 100.0 98.C.

;EAST LYME 185 185 0.0 98.4 98.9 98.9 98.9,i

7XASTON 84 77 8.3 100.0 98.7 100.0 98.7

'EAST WINDSOR 91 86 5.5 100.0 98.8 100.0 98.8'

c;ELLINGT0N 126 114 9.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.02

ENFIELD 479 469 2.1 94.2 94.5 99.6 97.2i

dFAIRFIELD 428 411 4.0 98.1 92.5 95.6 96.1;

':.1ARMINGTON 167 162 3.0 99.4 99.4 99.4 94.4s,

OGLASTONBURYRANKLIN 28346

28330

0.04.6

100.099.4

100.098.8

100.09).1

100.0!98.5:

i.ORANBY 116 113 2.6 98.2 '99.1 99.1 99.11

1GREENWICH 444 425 4.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01

SORISWOLD 107 102 4.7 99.0 99.0 100.0 100.0'

4ROTON 392 385 1.8 94.5 94.3 94.5 94.3:

'GUILFORD 148 143 3.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.01

OAMDEN 339 339 0.0 97.9 96.8 99.4 99.7",

7HARTFORD 1551 1305 15.9 97.9 95.6 10J.0 97.9:

PHARTLAND 14 14 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0;

.,KENT 40 37 7.5 97.3 97.3 97.3 100.0.

AILLINGLY 200 187 6 5 96.3 96.8 100.0 96.*;

LEBANON 81 79 2.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0;

.136

'DISTRICT,%;j-,

LISBON,ITCHFIELDBISON 228

7953

215

4978

7.51.35.7

100.098.797.7

100.096.298.6

100.0100.0 100.098.7 100.098.6

LEOTARD 232 229 1.3 100.0 100.0

4yMERIDEN

NSFIELDCHESTER 504

111561

486

499108

11.1

3.62.7

98.897.296.6

97.197.296.8

100.098.8

99.4 9977:DDLETOWNrmitFORD

374 363 2.9 98.6 97.8 100.0 99.2463 463 0.0 97.8 98.3 99.1 98.51I

tHOHROE 258 255 1.2 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0ANTVILLE 243 223 8.2 99.6 99.1 99.6x::

NEWARITAIN 515 419 18.6 95.0 95.0

1004 .0

98.100.0 97.0

UGATUCK 335 319 4.8 97.8 98.1 1ZiMEWCANAAN 219 216 1.4 99.1 99.54NEWIFAIRFIELDHEIONAVEN 1121

2081026204

8.51.9

Q5.198.5

93.799.0

100.099.097.4

99.0:4kNEWINGTON 297 288 3.0 100.0:MEW LONDON 196 162 17.3

100.099.4

100.0 TTDITOWNDO:MILFORD

272310 288

2637.13.3

100.099.398.1 98.5

99.0100.099.7

99:2i2Z'

NORTH BRANFORD,

153 149 2.6 100.0 98.0 99.3 98.7'NORTH -CANAAN 42 38 9.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.11iNORTH HAVEN 219 212 3.2 98.1

AN:V;SAYBROOK 106 105 0.9

H''i97.Y,

4MRTWSTONINGTON 66 66 0.0 13:g 98.5100.0

;NORWICH 383 366 4.4 96.7 95.91(91.141

100.0

NORHALK 685 663 3.2 97.0 96.4

100.0 100.0OXFORD 85 85 0.0100.0

IOU 100.0 100.0:'11AINFIELD 182 165 9.3100.0100.0 100.0 100.0PLAINVILLE 182 180 1.1 98.3

100.098.3 98.9 98.3PLYMOUTH 172 163 5.2 98.8 98.8 99.4 99.4:41MMFRET 32 32 0.0 100.0 100.0PORTLAND 94 94 0.0 98.9 98.9

100.0 M97.9

at'PRESTON 60 60 0.0 100.0 100.011/TRAM 94 90 4.3

100.098.9

100.096.7 96.7 98.9=;',

100.0REDDING 120 113 5.8 98.2 100.0 100.0g,,RIDGEFIELD 306 306 0.0 100.0 100.0 99.7 100.0;ROCKY HILL 126 0.8 100.0 100.0',SALEM

.127 100.0 100.044 42 4.5 97.6 100.0 100.0,?SALISBURY 25 21 16.0100.0100.0 100.0 100.0".::SEYMOUR 138 138 0.0 99.3

100.0100.0 100.0 100.01SHARON 16 15 6.3 100.0 100.0 100.0SHELTON 342 314 8.2 96.8100.095.9 99.7 99.0''MERMAN 21 21 0.0 100.0 100.0..f3IMSBURY 321 317 1.2

100.098.4

100.098.7 99.7 99.C..sSOMERS 0, 88 3.3 98.9 98.9 97.7.i'

100.0;GOUTHINGTON 41, 470 1.1 100.0 INA 100.0;,SOUTH WINDSOR 249 249 0.0 99.6 99.6 99.6 100.0:iSPRAGUE 28 27 3.6 100 0 100.0 100.0 100.0;(STAFFORD 120 112 6.7 99.1 99.1 100.0 99.1;iSTAMFORD 773 662 14.4 98.3 98.5 98.8(STERLING 31 31 0.0 100.0 96.8 igg:g 100.0,,STONINGTON 169 158 6.5 98.7 98.7 98.7 98.7),,-!,-.--

PARTICIPATION RATES FOR EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS BY DISTRICTSCHOOL YEAR 1986-1987

TOTAL STUDENTS PERCENT OF STUDENT PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE STUDENTS TESTEDEIGHTH-PADi ELIGIBLE POP.EXEMPTPOPULATION FOR TESTING FROM TESTING MATHEMATICS LANGUAGE ARTS WRITING READING;'

"%

137

2i':"L EIGHTH-GRADE ELIGIBLE POP EXEMPTRITRICT POPULATION FOR TESTING FROM TESTING

PARTICIPATION RATES FOR EIGHTH-GRADE STUDENTS BY DISTRICTSCHOOL YEAR 1986-1987

TOTAL STUDENTS PERCENT OF STUDENT PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE STUDENTS TESTED

%,-,:!..

STRATFORD?SUFFIELDINOMASTON3MOMPSONOVLEANDAURINGTONTRUMBULL:UNION?VERNON.1WOLUNTONN',WALLINGFORDIMERBURYMATERFORD40TERTONN41ESTBROOK,IWESVHARTFORD;WESTAAVEN'WESTON;WESTPORT:WETHERSFIELDNILLINGTONOULTONNINCHESTER1WINDHANNINDSOROUNDSOR LOCKSNOLCCTT1WOODSTOCK;REGION IV'iliEG10N V;REGION VIREGION VIIREGION VIII

4RFGIONX

EGION XIREGION XIIREGION XIII,REGION XIV%REGION XV;REGION XVI;REGION XVII

ilEGION XVIII

465 435 6.5127 125 1.685 85 0.0117 107 8.5147 147 0.0263 238 9.5353 350 0.8

5 5 0.0340 339 0.326 24 7.7

463 438 5.41003 952 5.1206 199 3.4226 208 8.058 52 10.3575 563 2.3438 373 14.8141 141 0.0285 265 7.0222 216 2.765 63 3.1

212 212 0.0131 126 3.8236 214 9.:5

269 268 0.4115 113 1.7172 171 0.662 62 0.0139 134 3.6307 307 0.065 54 16.9123 110 10.6204 204 0.0170 167 1.860 60 0.072 69 4.2108 103 4.6111 106 4.5231 221 4.3137 130 5.1172 160 7.085 83 2.4

138

MATHEMATICS

99.399.298.899.1

100.098.399.7

100.097.691.798.989.9

LANGUAGE ARTS

99.5100.097.699.1

100.097.199.7

100.098.291.798.689...;

WRITING

99.899.298.899.1

100.098.3

100.0100.098.891.799.895.4

READING.r,.,

99.8;100:8t-97:61100.0100-A098.74100.0100:098.8:!:,

91:799.3.94X

99.5 99 J 99.5 100.098.6 96,$ 96.6 99:0,;,'

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0;;99.1 99.3 100.0 99.1-;

93.8 92.5 99.5 15:7''

100.0 100.0 100.0 99.32i

98.9 98.9 100.0 98.999.5 98.6 99.5 99.5'1,

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.04100.0 99.1 100.0 99.597.6 96.0 100.0 9Y.6;:i

89.7 90.2 94.4 92.1*,!

99.3 99.3 99.6 99.3::

100.0 100.0 100.0 100 098.3 98.2 99.4 98.8498.4 100.0 100.0 100.04

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0'?100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.05100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0;99.5 99.0 99.5 99.0;99.4 100.0 100.0 100.0

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0Z98.6 98.2 98.6 98.6'.

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0;10n.0 100.0 100.0 100.W100.0 100.0 100.0 100.e

Connecticut StateDepartment of Education

Program and Support ServicesLorraine M. Aronson

Deputy Commissioner

Office of Research and EvaluationPascal D. Forgione, jr., Chief

Douglas A. RindoneEducation Consultant

Peter BehuniakEducation Consultant

William CongeroEducation Service Specialist

Christina D. DanoffProgram Assistant, Mastery Testing

Division If Curriculum andProfessional Development

Betty J. Sternberg, Director

Betsy CarterSteven I.2inwand

Mathematics Consultants

Robert KinderMary Weinland

Reading/Language Arts Consultants

139

123456789101112ABCOE

document resume ud 025 951 connecticut …:en ed 289 939 document resume ud 025 951 title...

Documents