measuring student progress grades 3-8 ela and math ... · pdf filemeasuring student progress...
TRANSCRIPT
Measuring Student Progress in Grades 3-8 English Language
Arts and Mathematics
August 2015
Summary • In 2015, students made modest progress in English Language Arts (ELA)
and math in terms of the percentage of students achieving proficiency.
• For ELA, the percentage of test takers who scored at the Proficient Level (Levels 3 and 4) in 2015 was 31.3, compared to 30.6 in 2014 and 31.1 in 2013.
• For math, the percentage of test takers who scored at the Proficient Level (Levels 3 and 4) in 2015 was 38.1, compared to 36.2 in 2014 and 31.1 in 2013.
• In NYC, Ever English Language Learners (ELLs)—students who received ELL services in school years prior to 2014-15 but not during the 2014-15 school year—had higher levels of ELA and math proficiency than NYC students who never received ELL services (Never ELLs).
• Progress for Black and Hispanic students increased incrementally in ELA and math. However, the achievement gap persists.
• Approximately 80% of eligible test takers participated in the 2015 Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Tests; about 20% of eligible test takers did not have a recognized, valid reason for not participating.
2
3
New York is phasing in higher learning standards over 12 years
2010: Board of Regents adopted more rigorous, college and career readiness standards
2013: English Language Arts (ELA) and math assessments aligned to the new standards administered for first time in grades 3-8
2014: Roll-out of more rigorous Regents Exams June 2014: Algebra I (ELA offered, but not required) June 2015: Geometry (ELA offered, but not required) June 2016: Algebra II and ELA (required for 1st time)
Class of 2017: First cohort of high school graduates required to pass more rigorous Regents Exams for graduation at the current score of 65 (partial proficiency)
Class of 2022: First cohort of high school graduates required to pass more rigorous Regents Exams for graduation at the aspirational college and career ready score (proficiency); this cohort just completed fifth grade 3
4
For students who will graduate prior to the class of 2022 (students who just completed grades 6-8), students scoring at Level 2 and Above on the ELA and math exams are on track for current graduation requirements. Students scoring at Level 3
and Above are on track to graduate at the aspirational college- and career-ready level.
For students who will graduate in the class of 2022 and later (students who just completed grade five and lower), students scoring at Level 3 and Above on the ELA
and math exams are on track to meet graduation requirements.
Grades 3-8 ELA and Math
Level 4 Student excels in the higher learning standards for this grade level
Level 3 Student is proficient in the higher learning standards for this grade level
Level 2 Student is partially proficient in the higher learning standards for this grade level
Level 1 Student is well below proficient in the learning standards for this grade level
Note: The change for the class of 2022 is due to a policy decision to have these students meet more rigorous graduation requirements to demonstrate college and career readiness, and not the result of a change in the rigor of the test. 4
2015 Grades 3-8 ELA Test Results
EngageNY.org
2015 Statewide Performance in ELA 37
.1%
36.4
%
38.8
%
37.8
%
6
30.9
% 35.3
%
30.6
%
29.5
% 33.6
%
31.9
%
35.0
%
33.0
%
35.7
%
35.1
%
26.2
%
21.3
%
20.0
%
16.2
% 23
.6%
25.0
%
22.0
%
4.8%
11.3
%
9.7%
14.4
%
5.6%
9.7%
9.3%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Combined GradesLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Students Statewide Made Modest Gains in ELA The percentage of students who met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4)
increased to 31.3 in 2015 from 30.6 in 2014 and 31.1 in 2013.
2013 2014
64.4
%
31.2
%
69.6
%
30.3
%
65.9
%
30.2
%
71.2
%
29.6
%
68.0
%
31.4
%
70.5
%
33.8
%
68.3
%
31.1
%
62.9
%
31.6
%
69.2
%
32.4
%
64.1
%
29.0
%
72.6
%
28.0
%
64.5
%
28.4
%
72.0
%
34.2
%
67.5
%
30.6
%
62.9
%
31.0
%
69.1
%
32.7
%
64.7
%
29.8
%
69.4
%
30.6
%
62.2
%
29.2
%
70.5
%
34.7
%
66.4
%
31.3
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2015
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Combined Grades
Grade 8
Percentage of All Test Takers Statewide in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above by Grade Level
7
2015 NYC Performance in ELA 37
.3%
36.8
%
39.1
%
37.8
%
38.4
%
31.9
%
34.9
%
30.8
%
28.7
% 33.6
%
32.5
%
35.4
%
34.0
%
36.0
%
24.9
%
19.8
%
19.2
%
15.2
% 22.4
%
23.9
%
21.0
%
5.3%
11.4
%
10.5
% 14.8
%
5.7% 9.
0%
9.4%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Combined Grades NYC
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
8
NYC Students Made Progress in ELA The percentage of NYC students who met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4) is approaching statewide levels. In 2015, 30.4 percent of students combined across all
grades were proficient or above, compared to 31.3 percent statewide.
2013 2014
61.5
%
28.2
%
66.6
%
27.3
%
64.4
%
28.8
%
64.9
%
23.4
%
62.7
%
25.6
%
62.4
%
25.5
%
63.7
%
26.5
%
61.0
%
30.0
%
67.3
%
31.2
%
63.5
%
28.4
%
69.5
%
25.3
%
62.8
%
26.8
%
68.3
%
28.9
%
65.4
%
28.5
%
62.7
%
30.2
%
68.1
%
31.3
%
65.1
%
29.7
%
69.2
%
30.0
%
62.2
%
28.2
%
71.3
%
32.9
%
66.4
%
30.4
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2015
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Combined Grades
NYC
Grade 8
Percentage of All NYC Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above by Grade
9
Big 5 City District Performance in ELAELA performance was mixed among Big 5 districts. Some districts had a slightly higher percentage of
students scoring at Level 3 and Above in 2015, while performance in other districts held relatively steady.
63.7
%
26.5
%
39.9
%
11.5
%
28.4
%
5.4%
32.9
%
8.7%
52.5
%
16.4
%
68.3
%
31.1
%
65.4
%
28.5
% 39
.0%
11.9
%
28.6
%
5.5%
31.6
%
8.5%
55.5
%
18.6
%
67.5
%
30.6
%
66.4
%
30.4
% 36.7
%
11.9
%
24.3
%
4.7%
29.1
%
8.1%
55.3
%
20.3
%
66.4
%
31.3
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Yonkers Buffalo Total Public SyracuseRochesterNYC
Percentage of All Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above Combined Grades 10
11
Statewide Performance in ELA by Need/Resource Group In 2015, ELA performance remained consistent for most Need/Resource Groups, with low-need districts
continuing to outperform other groups.
Percentage of All Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 3 and Above Combined Grades
26.5
%
10.4
% 17.2
% 23.0
% 35
.1%
51.5
%
23.1
% 31.1
%
28.5
%
11.2
% 16.2
% 21.9
% 33
.2%
49.1
%
26.1
% 30.6
%
30.4
%
11.5
% 16.0
% 22.4
% 34
.1%
52.2
%
27.5
%
31.3
%
NYC Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Charter Total Public
2013 2014 2015
Statewide Performance in ELA by Race/Ethnicity All race/ethnicity groups had a slightly higher percentage of students meeting or
exceeding the ELA proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4) in 2015, although the achievement gap continues statewide.
82.5
%
50.1
%
53.5
%
16.2
%
56.5
%
17.7
%
58.4
%
21.2
%
77.1
%
39.9
%
82.4
%
50.4
%
54.4
%
17.4
%
57.2
%
18.5
%
59.9
%
22.0
%
75.5
%
38.5
%
83.2
%
52.5
%
54.3
%
18.5
%
57.3
%
19.7
%
60.4
%
23.8
%
74.7
%
40.4
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
American Indian/Alaska
Native
Asian/Pacific Islander
HispanicBlack White
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 Combined Grades
12
13
NYC Performance in ELA by Race/Ethnicity 81
.7%
47.8
% 54.9
%
16.4
%
55.5
%
16.6
%
63.6
%
25.6
%
81.6
%
47.0
%
82.0
%
49.2
% 56.6
%
18.1
%
57.4
%
18.3
%
65.7
%
26.7
%
82.6
%
49.5
%
83.3
%
52.0
% 57.0
%
19.0
%
58.4
%
19.8
%
66.9
%
28.7
%
82.8
%
51.3
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black Hispanic American Indian/Alaska
Native
White
Percentage of All NYC Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 Combined Grades 13
Girls Continued to Outperform Boys Statewide in ELA in 2015
73.0
%
35.4
%
63.8
%
27.0
%
72.6
%
35.1
%
62.7
%
26.3
%
72.1
%
36.4
%
61.0
%
26.5
%
2 & above 3 & above 2 & above 3 & above
Females Males 2013 2014 2015
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 Combined Grades by Gender 14
Across all race/ethnicity groups, girls performed better than boys
statewide on the ELA proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4). 86
.7%
58.1
%
61.5
%
23.1
%
63.7
%
23.7
%
66.2
%
28.1
%
79.9
%
46.7
%
79.8
%
47.3
%
47.2
%
14.0
%
51.2
%
15.8
%
55.3
%
20.0
%
69.8
%
34.6
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
Females
Males
Asian/ Pacific
American White Indian/Alaska
Native Islander
Black Hispanic
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2015 by Gender and Race/Ethnicity 15
Charter School Performance in ELA
69.9
%
25.0
%
58.4
%
17.4
%
66.9
%
23.1
%
68.3
%
31.1
%
71.7
%
28.0
%
59.5
%
19.6
%
69.0
%
26.1
%
67.5
%
30.6
%
71.9
%
29.3
%
58.0
%
20.5
%
69.1
%
27.5
%
66.4
%
31.3
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Total Public NYC Charters All ChartersRest of State Charters
The Percentage of All Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above Combined Grades
16
Statewide English Language Learner Performance in ELA English Language Learners (ELLs) statewide continued to make slight gains in ELA with
a higher percentage of students scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above, although their proficiency levels are still well below those of
Ever ELL and Never ELL students.
25.0
%
3.2%
68.3
%
31.1
%
24.5
%
3.3%
74.6
%
27.8
%
70.1
%
33.0
%
67.5
%
30.6
%
25.1
%
3.9%
75.1
%
30.5
%
69.1
%
33.9
%
66.4
%
31.3
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Never ELLs3Current ELLs1 Ever ELLs2 Total Public
1 Students identified as ELL during the reported year. 2Students identified as ELL any year prior to the reported year but not including the reported year. 3Students never reported to have received ELL services.
Ever and Never ELLs data are only available for 2014 and 2015. 17
NYC English Language Learners Performance in ELA In NYC, Ever ELLs outperformed NYC students who have never received ELL
services (Never ELLs) and outperformed Ever ELLs statewide.
25.0
%
3.2%
68.3
%
31.1
%
26.4
%
3.6%
77.8
%
31.1
%
69.1
%
32.0
%
67.5
%
30.6
%
27.4
%
4.4%
78.8
%
34.2
%
70.1
%
33.8
%
66.4
%
31.3
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Never ELLs3Current ELLs1 Ever ELLs2 Total Public
1 Students identified as ELL during the reported year. 2Students identified as ELL any year prior to the reported year but not including the reported year. 3Students never reported to have received ELL services.
Ever and Never ELLs data are only available for 2014 and 2015. 18
19
Students with Disabilities Performance in ELA Although only 5.7 percent of students with disabilities* met or exceeded the ELA
proficiency standard (Level 3 and 4) in 2015, the percentage of students scoring at Level 2 and Above edged slightly higher to 28.3 percent.
75.8
%
75.4
%
74.4
%
27.4
%
4.9%
35.9
%
27.8
%
5.2%
35.6
%
28.3
%
5.7%
36.6
%
2 & above Students with Disabilities
3 & above Students with Disabilities
2 & above General Education
3 & above General Education
2013 2014 2015
19 * Earlier this summer, USED denied a waiver request by SED that would have allowed certain students with severe disabilities to be tested at their instructional level rather than grade level.
2015 Grades 3-8 Math Test Results
EngageNY.org
2015 Statewide Performance in Math
A USED waiver eliminated unnecessary double testing and allowed accelerated math students to participate in high school math Regents Exams instead of the Grade 8 Math Test, which may cause a
decrease in the percentage proficient in Grade 8.
39.7
%38
.4%
21
27.9
%
27.0
%
30.8
%
28.4
% 33.6
%
30.7
%
30.2
%
29.9
%
26.5
% 32.7
%
31.6
%
31.2
%
23.7
%
23.8
%
26.3
%
19.8
%
22.8
%
15.3
% 22.3
%
18.3
%
19.3
%
16.4
%
19.0
%
12.0
%
6.6%
15.8
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Combined GradesLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
Students Statewide Made Progress in Math The percentage of students who met or exceeded the proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4) increased to
38.1 in 2015 from 36.2 in 2014 and 31.1 in 2013. A USED waiver eliminated unnecessary double testing and allowed accelerated math students
to participate in high school math Regents Exams instead of the Grade 8 Math Test, which may cause a decrease in the percentage proficient in Grade 8.
69.7
%
34.2
%
71.1
%
36.4
%
60.3
%
29.9
%
71.1
%
30.6
%
62.1
%
27.8
%
68.9
%
27.5
%
67.2
%
31.1
%
73.1
%
42.2
%
73.3
%
41.8
%
67.9
%
39.3
%
72.6
%
37.2
%
64.6
%
32.0
%
62.6
%
21.5
%
69.3
%
36.2
%
72.1
%
42.0
%
73.0
%
43.1
%
69.2
%
42.7
%
71.6
%
38.9
%
66.4
%
34.8
%
60.3
%
21.9
%
69.3
%
38.1
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2015
2013 2014
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Combined
Grades Grade 8
The Percentage of All Test Takers Statewide in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above by Grade Level
22
2015 NYC Performance in Math A USED waiver eliminated unnecessary double testing and allowed accelerated math students
to participate in high school math Regents Exams instead of the Grade 8 Math Test, which may cause a decrease in the percentage proficient in Grade 8.
23
30.3
%
30.1
%
32.0
%
32.3
% 36.6
%
33.5
%
31.1
%
30.8
%
27.1
% 32.2
%
30.9
% 36.6
%
31.3
%
21.8
%
20.9
%
24.2
%
17.2
%
19.7
%
14.4
% 19.9
%
16.8
%
18.3
%
16.7
%
18.3
%
12.9
%
8.0%
15.4
%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Combined Grades
NYCLevel 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 41
.0%
NYC Students Made Progress in Math The percentage of NYC students who met or exceeded the proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4)
for math was 35.2 in 2015, up from 34.3 in 2014 and 29.7 in 2013 combined across all grades. A USED waiver eliminated unnecessary double testing and allowed accelerated math students
to participate in high school math Regents Exams instead of the Grade 8 Math Test, which may cause a decrease in the percentage proficient in Grade 8.
67.8
%
33.2
%
69.0
%
35.3
%
58.0
%
29.7
%
66.7
%
28.9
%
55.5
%
25.1
%
63.1
%
25.8
%
63.4
%
29.7
%
70.1
%
38.7
%
70.7
%
40.0
%
66.9
%
38.8
%
67.6
%
33.8
%
60.2
%
29.7
%
60.5
%
22.8
%
66.2
%
34.3
%
69.7
%
38.5
%
69.9
%
39.1
%
68.0
%
40.9
%
67.7
%
35.5
%
63.4
%
32.5
%
59.0
%
22.5
%
66.5
%
35.2
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2015
2013 2014
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Combined Grades
NYC
Percentage of All NYC Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above by Grade 24
Big 5 City District Performance in Math Each Big 5 district had a slightly higher percentage of students scoring at Level 3 and Above in 2015.
63.4
%
29.7
% 35.3
%
9.6%
25.4
%
5.0%
29.2
%
6.9%
46.9
%
14.6
%
67.2
%
31.1
%
66.2
%
34.3
% 39.2
%
13.1
%
29.3
%
7.2%
27.8
%
8.3%
54.0
%
21.8
%
69.3
%
36.2
%
66.5
%
35.2
% 40.1
%
15.1
%
28.7
%
7.4%
28.3
%
9.4%
54.7
%
24.0
%
69.3
%
38.1
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Yonkers Buffalo Total Public SyracuseRochesterNYC
Percentage of All Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above Combined Grades
25
26
Statewide Performance in Math by Need/Resource Group In 2015, all need/resource groups made progress in math, with low-need districts continuing to
outperform other groups.
Percentage of All Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 3 and Above Combined Grades
29.7
%
9.0%
14.8
% 19.4
%
32.4
%
50.4
%
31.3
%
31.1
%
34.3
%
12.8
% 17.9
% 25.6
%
38.9
%
57.7
%
40.8
%
36.2
%
35.2
%
14.5
% 19.6
% 30
.5%
43.4
%
63.3
%
41.5
%
38.1
%
NYC Large City Urban-Suburban
Rural Average Low Charter Total Public
2013 2014 2015
27
Statewide Performance in Math by Race/Ethnicity All race/ethnicity groups had a greater percentage of students meeting or exceeding the math
proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4) in 2015, although the achievement gap persists statewide.
86.5
%
59.9
%
49.2
%
15.3
%
55.4
%
18.5
%
57.6
%
20.9
%
76.4
%
38.1
%
87.8
%
64.7
%
52.6
%
19.8
%
58.5
%
23.4
%
62.2
%
27.6
%
78.8
%
44.8
%
88.2
%
66.0
%
53.4
%
21.3
%
58.8
%
24.5
%
64.4
%
30.7
%
80.6
%
49.7
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Asian/Pacific American White Indian/Alaska
Native Islander
Black Hispanic
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 Combined Grades 27
28
NYC Performance in Math by Race/Ethnicity 87
.4%
61.0
%
49.8
%
15.3
%
55.2
%
18.6
%
63.2
%
28.4
%
82.5
%
50.3
%
88.9
%
66.0
%
52.6
%
18.6
%
58.6
%
23.2
%
67.3
%
34.4
%
84.4
%
56.0
%
89.2
%
66.8
%
52.5
%
19.1
%
58.8
%
23.7
%
67.2
%
34.3
%
84.5
%
56.7
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Asian/Pacific Islander
Black American Indian/Alaska
Native
Hispanic White
Percentage of All NYC Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 28 Combined Grades
Girls Continued to Outperform Boys Statewide in Math in 2015
68.4
%
30.9
%
66.0
%
31.2
%
70.7
%
36.7
%
67.8
%
35.8
%
70.9
%
38.7
%
67.8
%
37.5
%
2 & above 3 & above 2 & above 3 & above
Females Males 2013 2014 2015
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 Combined Grades by Gender
29
Across all race/ethnicity groups, girls performed better than boys statewide on the math proficiency standard (Levels 3 and 4).
89.1
%
67.0
%
56.6
%
23.2
%
60.3
%
24.8
%
65.5
%
31.2
%
81.8
%
50.0
%
87.3
%
65.2
%
50.3
%
19.5
%
57.3
%
24.3
%
63.5
%
30.2
%
79.5
%
49.4
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
Females
Males
American Indian/Alaska
Asian/ Black Hispanic White
Native Pacific
Islander
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2015 by Gender and Race/Ethnicity 30
Charter School Performance in Math 74
.4%
34.8
%
63.1
%
21.0
%
71.5
%
31.3
%
67.2
%
31.1
%
78.6
%
43.9
%
68.4
%
30.4
%
76.4
%
40.8
%
69.3
%
36.2
%
77.8
%
44.2
%
66.7
%
30.2
%
75.6
%
41.5
%
69.3
%
38.1
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Total Public NYC Charters All ChartersRest of State Charters
The Percentage of All Test Takers in 2013, 2014, and 2015 who scored at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above Combined Grades 31
Statewide English Language Learner Performance in Math English Language Learners (ELLs) statewide continued to make slight gains in math.
Ever ELLs had similar levels of math proficiency (Levels 3 and 4) to Never ELLs.
35.0
%
9.8%
67.2
%
31.1
%
37.3
%
12.1
%
70.3
%
35.6
%
72.5
%
39.1
%
69.3
%
36.2
%
37.4
%
12.7
%
76.9
%
40.6
%
72.0
%
40.7
%
69.3
%
38.1
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
Never ELLs3Current ELLs1 Ever ELLs2 Total Public
1 Students identified as ELL during the reported year. 2Students identified as ELL any year prior to the reported year but not including the reported year. 3Students never reported to have received ELL services. Ever and Never ELLs data are only available for 2014 and 2015.
32
NYC English Language Learner Performance in Math In NYC, Current ELLs in NYC made small gains in math, although their proficiency
levels remain below Ever ELLs and Never ELLs. Ever ELLs had a significantly higher level of math proficiency (Levels 3 and 4) than Never ELLs.
35.0
%
9.8%
67.2
%
31.1
% 41
.2%
14.0
%
71.5
%
38.1
%
69.5
%
37.3
%
69.3
%
36.2
%
41.3
%
14.6
%
79.8
%
44.3
%
68.6
%
37.3
%
69.3
%
38.1
%
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2 & above
3 & above
2013 2014 2015
33
Never ELLs3Current ELLs1 Ever ELLs2 Total Public
1 Students identified as ELL during the reported year. 2Students identified as ELL any year prior to the reported year but not including the reported year. 3Students never reported to have received ELL services.
Ever and Never ELLs data are only available for 2014 and 2015.
34
Students with Disabilities Performance in 2015
Although only 10.6 percent of students with disabilities* met or exceeded the math proficiency standard (Level 3 and 4) in 2015, the percentage of
students scoring at Level 2 and Above increased to 34.3 percent.
74.0
%
76.4
%
76.6
%
29.9
%
6.8%
35.5
%
33.7
%
9.6%
41.6
%
34.3
%
10.6
%
43.9
%
2 & above Students with 3 & above Students with 2 & above General 3 & above General Disabilities Disabilities Education Education
2013 2014 2015
Percentage of All Test Takers Scoring at Level 2 and Above and Level 3 and Above for 2013, 2014, and 2015 Combined Grades
* Earlier this summer, USED denied a waiver request by SED that would have allowed certain students with severe disabilities to be tested at their instructional level rather than grade level. 34
Expected 2015 Test Taking Population
vs. Those Not Tested in 2015
EngageNY.org
36 36
Not Tested Count
participating.
2015 80%
20%
• Approximately 80 percent of eligible test takers participated in the 2015 Grades 3-8 Math and ELA Tests; about 20 percent of eligible test takers did not participate in these tests and did not have a recognized, valid reason for not
Tested
Did Not Participate and Did Not Have a Recognized, Valid Reason for Not Participating
• SED historically has only tracked the number of students not tested for an invalid, unknown reason. These students are categorized as “not tested” students.
• The not tested count includes students who refused the test, as well as students who were absent during the test administration period. The count does not include students who were medically excused. 36
37
Not Tested Students
Students who did not test in 2015 and did not have a recognized, valid reason for not testing were:
• Much more likely to be White
• Much more likely to be from low need or average need districts
• More likely to have scored at Level 1 or 2 in 2014
• Less likely to be English Language Learners
• Much less likely to be economically disadvantaged
37
38
38 38
Race/Ethnicity of Not Tested Students in 2015
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
Asian Black Hispanic White
When compared to the expected 2015 test-taking population, those students who were not tested in
2015 were disproportionately white.
Expected 2015 Test-Taking Population 2015 Not Tested 38
39
39 39
Need/Resource Characteristics of Districts of Not Tested Students in 2015
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math ELA Math
New York City Big 4 Cities High Need Urban/Suburban
High Need Rural Average Need Low Need Charter
When compared to the expected 2015 test-taking population, those students
who were not tested in 2015 were disproportionately from average-need
and low-need districts.
Expected 2015 Test-Taking Population 2015 Not Tested 39
40
40 40
Disability Status of Not Tested Students in 2015
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0% ELA
Students With Disabilities
Math
2015 Estimated Test-Taking Population 2015 Not Tested 40
41 41
2014 Performance Levels of Not Tested Students in 2015
Not tested students in 2015 were more likely to have scored at Level 1 or 2 in 2014.
45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%
5% 0%
Level 1 in 2014
Level 2 in 2014
Level 3 in 2014
ELA
Level 4 in 2014
Level 1 in 2014
Level 2 in 2014
Level 3 in 2014
Math
Level 4 in 2014
Expected 2015 Test-Taking Population 2015 Not Tested 41
42 42
ELL Status of Not Tested Students in 2015
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
When compared to the expected 2015 test-taking population, not
tested students in 2015 were less likely to be ELL students.
ELA Math
Non-ELL
ELA Math
ELL
Expected 2015 Test-Taking Population 2015 Not Tested Note: The “Non-ELL” category includes “Ever ELLs” and “Never ELLs” as defined previously (i.e., all students who are not in the “Current ELLs” category).
42
43 43
Test Participation of Economically Disadvantaged Students in 2015
ELA Math ELA Math
Not Economically Disadvantaged Economically Disadvantaged
When compared to the expected 2015 test-taking population, not tested students in 2015 were much less likely to be economically
disadvantaged.
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Expected 2015 Test-Taking Population 2015 Not Tested 43