The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness

Assessing College & Career
Readiness
July 17, 2012

1

Our Challenge
Graduating All Students College & Career Ready
New York's 4-year high school graduation rate is 74% for All Students.
However, the gaps are disturbing.

June 2011 Graduation Rate

Graduation under Current Requirements Calculated College & Career Ready*

% Graduating % Graduating
All Students 74.0 All Students 34.7
American Indian 59.6 American Indian 16.8
Asian/Pacific Islander 82.4 Asian/Pacific Islander 55.9
Black 58.4 Black 11.5
Hispanic 58.0 Hispanic 14.5
White 85.1 White 48.1
English Language Learners 38.2 English Language Learners 6.5
Students with Disabilities 44.6 Students with Disabilities 4.4
*Students graduating with at least a score of 75 on Regents English and 80 on a Math Regents, which correlates with
success in first-year college courses.
Source: NYSED Office of Information and Reporting Services 2

Higher education degree holders:
Earn and contribute more to economic growth

2010 By Educational Degree
Unemployment Rate Median Annual Earnings

-.9% Professional Degree $83,720

-.4% Doctorate $80,600

4.0% Masters $66,144

5.4% Bachelors $53,976

7.0% Associate $39,884

9.2% College, No Degree $37,024

10.3% HS Diploma $32,552

14.9% No HS Diploma $23,088

3

U.S. college graduation rates have stagnated relative to the rest of the
%
developed world. graduation rates for tertiary-type A and B programmes (1995 and 2009)
Chart A3.2. First-time
Tertiary-type A (2009) Tertiary-type A (1995)
70 70

60 60

50 Decline in relative position 50
of U.S. from 1995 to 2009
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0

1. Year of reference 2000 instead of 1995.
2. Year of reference 2008 instead of 2009.
3. Break in the series between 2008 and 2009 due to a partial reallocation of vocational programmes into ISCED 2 and ISCED 5B.
Countries are ranked in descending order of first-time graduation rates for tertiary-type A education in 2009. 4
Source: OECD. Table A3.2. See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2011).

Over 50% of students in NYS two-year institutions of higher
education take at least one remedial course.

Remediation Rates for First-time, Full-time Undergraduates
60.0%

50.4% 51.1% 52.0%
48.8% 47.5%
50.0% 48.3%

40.0% 2004-05
2005-06
30.0% 2006-07
25.3% 24.9% 26.0%
23.8% 23.4%
23.2%
2007-08
20.0%
2008-09
12.5% 12.1%
11.0% 11.5% 10.8% 11.4% 2009-10
10.0%

0.0%

All Institutions 2-Year Institution 4-Year Institution
5
Source: NYSED Administrative Data for all Public, Independent and Proprietary 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education

Regents Reform Agenda
Path to College & Career Readiness
 Implementing Common Core standards
Highly Effective and developing curriculum and
School Leaders
assessments aligned to these
standards to prepare students for
success in college and the workplace

 Building instructional data systems
that measure student success and
inform teachers and principals how they
can improve their practice in real time
Highly Effective College and
Teachers Career Ready
Students  Recruiting, developing, retaining, and
rewarding effective teachers and
principals

 Turning around the lowest-achieving
schools

6

In the 21st Century Economy,
College Readiness = Career Readiness
Research by Achieve, ACT, and others indicate a high
degree of convergence.

The knowledge and skills that high school graduates will
need to be successful in college are the same as those they
will need to be successful in a job that:

 pays enough to support a family well above the
poverty level,
 provides benefits, and
 offers clear pathways for career advancement
through further education and training.
ACT. (2006). Ready for College and Ready for Work: Same or different? Iowa City, IA.
American Diploma Project (2005). Rising to the Challenge: Are High School Graduates Prepared for College and Work?
Washington, DC.

Alignment of Performance Standards to
College & Career Readiness
2010

• In 2010, national experts conducted analyses of New York
State assessment data and performance in first-year college
courses
• Admissions directors of two- and four-year public and private
colleges in the Western NY, Central NY, Hudson Valley, and
New York City regions supported the experts’ determination
that Regents scores ranging from 75 to 85 in ELA and Math
were required for success in entry-level credit-bearing
courses
• In 2010, NYSED reset the performance standards on grades
3 – 8 ELA and Math assessments such that a designation of
Meets Proficiency Standard (Level 3) was indicative of a
75% chance of achieving a college- and career-ready score
on the ELA and Math Regents exams 8

Grades 3-8 ELA and Math Assessment Improvements to Increase Rigor
and Alignment with College & Career Readiness

2010 • Set new elementary- and middle-level college-ready performance standards based on the
likelihood of scoring in high school at 75 or 80 on the ELA and math Regents exams
• Moved assessments towards end of school year to give students more time to learn

• Increased length of assessments to better measure NY State Learning Standards
• Stopped releasing test items to ensure better security
2011 •
•
Added “audit” questions to monitor and mitigate against score inflation
Maintained elementary- and middle-level college-ready performance standards through equating
• First published Aspirational Performance Measure graduation rate metrics.

• Started embedding field test questions to get more precise measures for future assessments
• Gave students additional time to complete assessment
2012 •
•
Maintained elementary- and middle-level college-ready performance standards through equating
Published Aspirational Performance Measure graduation rate metrics

9

2012
Grade 3-8 English Language Arts and
Mathematics Results

10

The average scale scores on the English Language Arts test this
year were generally slightly higher than last year

English Language Arts 2006-2012
By Grade
Mean Scale Scores

675
674
673
672

672
670

670

670
669
669
668

666

668

668
667

667

667

667
666
665

665

665
664

664

664
663

663

663
663

662
661
661

661
659
658
657
656

655

655

655
652

650
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
11

The average scale scores on the Math test this year were
generally slightly higher than last year

Mathematics 2006-2012
By Grade
Mean Scale Scores
693
692

690
689
688

688

688
687

687

687
686
686
685

685
683

683
682
680

681
680

680
680
677

676

679
679

679
677

677
677
675

675
674

674
666

668

666
663
656

657
652
651
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
12

Scale Scores Needed for Proficiency
Each year, scores are “equated” so that performance levels have the same
meaning from one year to the next. Because of year-to-year differences in
individual test items, the number of raw scores needed to reach a scale
score or performance level may change.

Grade Math Math ELA ELA
2011 2012 2011 2012

3 684 684 663 663
4 676 676 671 671
5 676 676 668 668
6 674 674 662 662
7 670 670 665 665
8 674 674 658 658 13

Grades 3-8 ELA Results

14

55.1 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or
exceeded the proficiency standard, a small increase from last year

English Language Arts 2006 – 2012
Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
Number of Students Tested
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Grades 3-8: 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432 1,192,129

77.4%
68.5%
61.5% 63.4%
53.2% 52.8% 55.1%

Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 15

As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be proficient, fewer
students met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency standard in 2010.
In 2012, progress toward this new standard varied by grade.
Number Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457 195,777 198,367 196,604 196,757 198,878
Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499 197,016 195,942 199,530 197,385 195,346
Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133 198,022 197,856 197,448 200,602 197,786
Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463 200,505 197,996 198,135 198,450 200,821
Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839 207,278 202,805 200,183 200,551 199,131
Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971 209,180 207,494 204,383 201,687 200,167
Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283 1,195,432 1,192,129
82.2%

80.9%

80.3%
77.6%

77.4%
76.9%
75.8%

71.1%
70.1%

70.0%
69.0%

68.6%

68.5%

68.5%
68.0%

68.1%
67.1%

67.1%

66.9%

63.4%
63.2%

61.5%
60.4%
59.4%

57.6%

57.8%

57.0%
56.7%
56.7%

56.4%
55.9%

56.1%
55.5%

55.8%
55.7%

55.1%
54.7%

54.2%
53.8%

53.2%
52.8%
52.5%

52.3%

51.0%
50.3%
50.0%

49.3%
47.8%

46.9%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
16
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

In 2012, the majority of the Grades 3-5 students statewide met or
exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3 or
Level 4). The percentage of students in Grades 3-5 who scored at Level
4 increased compared to 2011.

(2011 results are striped; 2012 results are solid)

54.7%
54.2%

52.9%
51.3%

49.5%
48.8%

35.6%
35.0%

31.7%
31.3%

31.4%
30.8%
13.6%
12.8%

10.7%
10.5%
9.2%
8.3%
6.8%
4.6%

4.6%

4.7%
4.4%
2.5%

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5
2011 Level 1 2012 Level 1 2011 Level 2 2012 Level 2
2011 Level 3 2012 Level 3 2011 Level 4 2012 Level 4 17

exceeded the English Language Arts proficiency standard (Level 3 or
Level 4). The percentage of students who scored at Level 4 compared to
2011 varied by grade level.


53.2%
51.8%

48.7%

48.5%
45.1%
44.7%
44.3%
42.8%

42.3%
39.3%
33.7%
32.5%
11.7%
10.6%

9.4%

8.4%
8.4%

7.4%
3.9%

3.6%
3.7%
2.5%

1.8%
1.8%

11.7 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the ELA
proficiency standard

Number of ELL Students Tested

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Grades 3-8: 27,507 72,082 73,199 74,854 79,348 81,869 79,552

36.4%
25.1%
16.2% 18.0% 14.3% 12.6% 11.7%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 19

15.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the ELA
proficiency standard

Number of Students with Disabilities Tested
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Grades 3-8: 166,511 173,369 181,381 182,847 188,096 186,886 185,682

39.3%
22.8% 27.9%
20.2% 15.2% 15.5%
14.5%

Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

20

41.1 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students met or
exceeded the ELA proficiency standard

86.9%
79.4%

71.6%
69.5%

68.8%

68.5%
66.9%

66.1%
55.3%
50.3%

49.6%

41.1%
39.1%
39.1%

Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged
21
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 3-8 reveal
the persistence of the achievement gap

Asian: 96,272
2012 Total Students
Black: 220,328
Hispanic: 270,236
American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 6,137
White: 586,984
86.6%

85.9%
Total Public: 1,192,129
79.6%

79.0%
77.6%

77.4%
75.6%

75.4%
71.8%
70.1%

68.9%

68.5%
67.9%
67.4%

66.4%
64.8%

64.8%
64.3%

64.2%

63.4%
61.5%
57.3%

55.1%
53.2%
52.9%

52.6%

52.8%
50.8%
46.5%
46.1%
45.6%
45.2%

43.1%
42.4%

41.3%
40.6%
40.0%
37.2%

36.8%
37.2%
35.0%
34.4%

Asian Black Hispanic American White Total Public
Indian/Alaskan
Native

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 22

Across grades 3-8, 60.1 percent of girls, compared to 50.4 percent
of boys, met or exceeded the ELA proficiency standard

81.0%

74.0%
72.8%
67.5%
65.5%

64.5%
60.1%

59.6%
57.8%

57.7%
57.9%

50.4%
48.6%

48.1%
Females Males
23
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

50.7%
50.8%
57.6%
68.8%
42.4%
43.9%

New York City
46.9%

37.3%

2006
38.7%
46.4%
56.9%
29.1%

Large City
27.8%
28.1%

2007
52.4%
54.9%
60.6%
70.9%

2008
43.1%
40.3%
42.0%

Urban-Suburban
56.7%

2009
62.0%
66.8%
76.3%

Rural
49.6%
47.5%
49.0%

2010
69.2%
73.0%
76.7%
84.2%
61.5%
2011
Average

60.2%
62.4%

82.9%
84.8%
2012

87.5%
91.8%
Low

74.9%
75.0%
77.2%
Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continued to

61.5%
63.4%
68.5%
77.4%
outperform large cities and rural areas in English Language Arts

24

53.2%
52.8%
Total Public

55.1%

50.7%
50.8%
57.6%
68.8%
42.4%
43.9%
46.9%

New York City
30.1%
34.5%
42.5%

2006
54.4%
27.7%

Buffalo
26.9%
27.9%

2007
38.4%
38.4%
46.6%
56.0%

2008
25.3%
24.4%

Rochester
20.7%

2009
34.0%
37.3%
42.1%
52.7%
25.5%

2010
Syracuse
22.5%
24.2%
51.1%
2011 46.7%
55.6%
65.2%
39.2%
Yonkers

37.8%
2012

40.7%
61.5%
63.4%
68.5%
77.4%
ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than statewide.

53.2%
A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded the

52.8%
25
Total Public

55.1%

36.6%
41.8%
43.0%
57.0%
37.5%
35.0%
39.0%

New York City
20.9%
33.3%
28.0%
42.5%
26.6%

Buffalo
23.1%
24.6%
26.3%

2011
2006
27.8%
31.1%
43.1%
21.1%
16.6%

Rochester

2012
2007
18.5%
21.3%
28.3%
30.8%
41.0%

2008
24.6%

Syracuse
19.6%
19.7%
than statewide.

31.8%
2009
35.1%
37.7%
50.4%
29.8%
Yonkers

26.6%
33.9%
2010

49.3%
57.0%
56.1%
68.5%
51.0%
A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or

46.9%
Total Public

50.3%
26
exceeded the ELA proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities

The percentage of students scoring at Level 4
statewide and in the Big 5 was generally slightly
higher than last year
English Language Arts 2009-2012
Statewide and Big 5
Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4

10.2%
8.7%
7.3%
6.1%

5.4%
4.5%

4.0%
3.5%
3.2%

3.3%

3.0%
2.7%

2.6%

2.6%
2.0%
1.7%

1.3%
1.4%
1.1%
0.9%

0.7%
0.9%
0.5%
0.4%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2009 2010 2011 2012
27

In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of
their students who met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency
standard. In 2012, progress toward this standard varied by grade.
Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined)
2006 9,916 students tested
79.4%

78.8%
76.8%

76.4%

76.1%
75.1%
68.8%
68.3%

68.1%
67.4%
65.1%

64.0%
60.8%

61.1%

59.6%
56.9%

55.2%
55.1%

54.9%

54.6%
54.4%
53.2%
51.7%
51.9%

50.8%
49.6%

49.2%
48.2%
47.3%
46.7%

47.0%
45.9%

44.7%
44.7%
44.4%

43.9%
43.8%

43.6%

43.0%
41.6%
40.8%

40.8%
40.3%

40.4%
39.4%
36.8%

35.7%
34.8%

34.7%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 28

Grades 3-8 Mathematics Results

29

64.8 percent of grades 3-8 students across the State met or exceeded
the mathematics proficiency standard, a slight increase from last year

Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384 1,207,539 1,202,504

86.4%
80.7%
72.7%
65.9%

64.8%
63.3%
61.0%

Grades 3-8 Math
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 30

As a result of raising the bar for what it means to be
proficient, fewer students met or exceeded the new
mathematics proficiency standard in 2010. In 2012, progress
toward this new standard increased slightly.
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500 200,336 198,785 198,825 200,625
Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730 197,704 201,769 199,459 197,116
Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746 199,511 199,594 202,738 199,552
Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058 199,940 200,774 200,417 202,394
Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039 204,648 202,723 202,492 200,933
Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716 209,221 206,739 203,608 201,884
Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384 1,207,539 1,202,504
92.9%
89.9%

88.1%

87.3%
87.2%

86.4%
85.2%

83.8%

83.2%

83.0%
80.5%

80.7%
80.2%
79.9%

79.4%

78.9%
77.9%

76.1%

72.7%
71.2%

69.8%
69.2%

68.4%

66.9%
66.6%

66.4%
66.2%

65.9%
65.1%

65.1%

64.8%
64.6%

64.6%
63.8%

63.3%
63.0%

62.4%
61.2%

61.3%

61.3%

61.0%
60.4%
59.6%

59.8%
59.1%

58.8%
55.6%

54.8%
53.9%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 31

exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4). The
percentage of students in Grades 4 and 5 who scored at Level 4
increased compared to 2011.

48.2%
46.2%

42.8%
39.9%
39.0%

38.4%
31.2%

30.2%
29.8%

28.5%
27.7%

27.9%
26.7%

25.7%
25.3%

23.5%
13.4%
12.9%
9.2%
9.0%

7.4%
5.7%

5.9%
5.5%


exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard (Level 3 or Level 4). The
percentage of students in Grades 6 and 8 who scored at Level 4
increased compared to 2011.


42.2%
41.7%
36.6%
34.5%

34.2%
34.3%

31.4%
31.4%
30.5%

30.8%
30.4%
29.0%

27.4%
26.7%

26.3%

26.2%

19.6%
17.7%
8.7%

8.8%
8.0%
8.2%

8.0%

7.3%

34.4 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded the
mathematics proficiency standard

67.1%
58.4%
45.7%
38.6%

34.4%
32.3%
30.7%
Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 34

28.5 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the
mathematics proficiency standard

58.4%
47.8%
37.2%
30.4%

28.5%
26.9%
24.6%
Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 35

53.3 percent of Economically Disadvantaged grades 3-8 students
met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard

92.4%
87.8%
81.9%
80.1%

78.4%
77.0%
74.4%
73.4%
72.3%
60.9%
56.0%

53.3%
51.5%
49.0%

Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 36

85.2%
89.1%
92.9%
94.9%

Asian
81.7%
83.7%
85.4%
45.8%

2006
54.6%
65.9%
75.0%

Black
40.9%
44.0%

2007
46.1%
51.6%
60.5%

2008
71.1%
79.5%
47.3%

Hispanic
50.2%
53.1%

2009
53.8%
61.8%
73.0%
81.6%

2010
Native
49.5%
American
52.3%
Indian/Alaskan
53.8%
76.4%
2011 82.0%
88.3%
92.2%
White

71.1%
2012

73.3%
74.0%
3-8 reveal the persistence of the achievement gap

65.9%
72.7%
80.7%
86.4%
61.0%
The mathematics results for racial/ethnic groups across grades

63.3%
Total Public

64.8%
37

Across grades 3-8, 65.9 percent of girls, compared to 63.7 percent
of boys, met or exceeded the mathematics proficiency standard

87.5%

85.4%
81.9%

79.6%
73.5%

71.9%
66.2%

65.9%

65.6%
64.3%

63.7%
62.4%
61.8%

60.2%
Females Males
38
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

57.0%
65.1%
74.3%
81.8%
54.0%
57.3%

New York City
60.0%

35.2%
41.0%
54.5%
64.7%
31.1%
31.6%

Large City
32.5%

2006
55.0%
63.5%
73.2%
81.0%

2007
48.6%

Urban-
Suburban
49.1%
49.7%

2008
62.4%
70.2%
79.3%
85.8%

Rural
54.3%

2009
55.8%
56.6%

74.0%
standard

2010
79.9%
86.9%
91.1%
67.6%

Average
69.7%

2011
70.4%

86.3%
90.0%

2012
93.9%
95.9%
Low

80.8%
83.2%
84.1%

65.9%
72.7%
80.7%
86.4%
61.0%
63.3%
large cities and rural areas on the mathematics proficiency

Total Public

64.8%
39
Across grades 3-8, low-need communities continued to outperform

A smaller proportion of grades 3-8 students met or exceeded
the mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than
statewide.

86.4%
81.8%

80.7%
74.3%

73.8%

72.7%
65.9%
65.1%

65.1%

64.8%
63.3%

63.4%

63.3%
61.0%
60.0%

58.2%
57.3%
57.0%

54.6%
54.0%

53.1%
52.3%
50.0%

49.8%

46.8%
41.5%
40.4%
39.4%
39.2%
35.9%

33.2%
31.0%
29.9%

30.2%
29.8%

29.4%
28.6%

28.0%
27.3%

26.9%
25.7%
25.3%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 40

A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or exceeded the
mathematics proficiency standard in the Big 5 cities than
statewide. Grade 8 math performance varied by grade level.

80.2%
69.8%
71.3%

61.3%
59.8%
59.6%

58.8%
57.8%
55.2%

54.8%
53.9%
52.5%

53.9%
46.3%
45.6%

41.8%
42.9%
38.9%

35.0%

34.8%
33.8%

32.9%

32.2%
30.9%
28.9%

27.9%
27.6%

27.3%
25.8%

25.8%
23.5%

20.4%

20.6%
20.0%

20.1%
19.5%
19.5%
17.9%
17.0%

15.3%
14.5%

13.4%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 41

In 2012, the percentage of students scoring at Level 4 varied by
grade statewide and in the Big 5

Statewide and Big 5
Grades 3-8 Combined
Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 4

29.1%
25.9%

25.4%
24.7%
23.7%

23.0%
22.2%
20.9%

17.7%

13.7%
13.0%
9.6%
8.4%

7.5%
6.6%

6.7%
6.2%
6.1%

6.0%

5.0%
4.9%

4.6%
4.4%

4.3%

2009 2010 2011 2012
42

In 2010, Charter Schools saw similar declines in the proportion of
their students who met or exceeded the new mathematics proficiency
standard. In 2012, progress varied by grade.
Number of charter school students tested (Grades 3-8 combined)
96.1%
91.0%

89.4%

89.4%

89.4%
88.4%

86.8%

84.5%
83.4%

83.7%

82.1%

82.1%
81.0%
77.5%
75.5%
75.0%
72.6%
71.6%

71.4%
70.8%
69.5%

69.7%
69.4%

68.7%
68.6%
67.9%

67.9%

66.0%
65.3%

65.3%

64.6%
64.3%

63.8%

63.4%

63.0%

62.1%
61.6%

61.3%

60.3%
59.7%

59.7%

59.9%
59.1%

58.2%
53.7%
50.8%

50.4%
40.3%

40.0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
43

Assessment: Work Underway

44

New York State Assessment Transition Plan: ELA and Mathematics
As of July 13, 2012 (Subject to Revision)

Assessment –
2011–12 2012–13 2013–14 2014–15
Subject / Grade
ELA
Grades 3–8 Aligned to 2005 Standards Aligned to the Common Core
PARCC1
Grades 9–10 Aligned to the Common Core2
Regents Exam Aligned to the Regents Exam Aligned to the
Grade 11 Regents Aligned to 2005 Standards
Common Core3 Common Core / PARCC1, 3
Math
Grades 3–8 Aligned to the Common Core PARCC1
Algebra I Regents Exams Aligned to the
Aligned to 2005 Standards Regents Exams Aligned to the
Geometry Aligned to 2005 Standards Common Core3, 4
Common Core / PARCC1, 3, 4
Algebra II Aligned to the 2005 Standards
Additional State Assessments
NYSAA5 Aligned to 2005 Standards Aligned to the Common Core NCSC6
NYSESLAT Aligned to 1996 Standards Aligned to the Common Core

1The PARCC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the
 2012-13: the content of the grade 3-8 New York State Board of Regents. The PARCC assessments are still in development. All PARCC
assessments will be aligned to the Common Core.
tests will be aligned to the Common Core 2 Funding Pending.
3The PARCC consortium is developing ELA and mathematics assessments that will cover grades 3-11.
 2013-14: some Regents Exams will be New York State will continue to monitor the development of these assessments to determine how the
PARCC assessments might intersect with the Regents Exams. Note that all new Regents Exams and
aligned to the Common Core PARCC assessments will be implemented starting with the end-of-year administration, rather than the
winter or summer administrations.
4The names of New York State’s Mathematics Regents Exams are expected to change to reflect the new
 2014-15: all ELA and math Regents will alignment of these assessments to the Common Core. For additional information about the upper-level
mathematics course sequence and related standards, see the “Traditional Pathway” section of Common
be aligned to the Common Core Core Mathematics Appendix A (http://engageny.org/news/traditional-course-pathway-for-high-school-
mathematics-courses-approved/).
 2014-15: transition to PARCC pending 5 This transition plan is specific to the NYSAA in ELA and mathematics.

BoR approval 6 New York State is a member of the NCSC national alternate assessment consortium that is engaged in
research and development of new alternate assessments for alternate achievement standards. The
NCSC assessments are scheduled to be operational in 2014-15 and are subject to adoption by the New
York State Board of Regents.

45

Assessing College & Career Readiness
• In 2010, the elementary- and middle-level ELA and math
proficiency standard was re-set to be aligned with college-
and career-ready performance in high school and post-
secondary education.
• In 2011 and 2012, this proficiency standard was maintained
through the annual equating process, which ensures that cut
scores are equivalent from year to year.
• In 2013, performance standards for the new NYS Common
Core 3-8 assessments will use a similar approach as was
used in 2010 to set cut scores aligned with college and career
readiness.
• In 2014-15, PARCC will follow NY’s lead and use similar
college and career ready data to set performance standards
for the PARCC assessments.
46

Partnership for the Assessment of Readiness for College
and Career (PARCC)

• A consortium of states working together to develop
a common set of K-12 assessments in English and
math anchored in what it takes to be ready for
college and careers.
• New K-12 assessments will build a pathway to
college and career readiness by the end of high
school, mark students’ progress toward this goal
from 3rd grade up, and provide teachers with timely
information to inform instruction and provide student
support.

47

The PARCC Assessment System
Target Launch in 2014-2015

The PARCC assessment system will:
• Better reflect the sophisticated knowledge and skills found in the
English and math Common Core State Standards
• Include a mix of item types (e.g., short answer, richer multiple choice,
longer open response, performance-based)
• Make significant use of technology and will be computer-based
• Include testing at key points throughout the year to give teachers,
parents and students better information about whether students are
on track or need additional support in particular areas

48

The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness

Similar to The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness (17)

More from CASDANY

More from CASDANY (8)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Role of ELA and Math in College and Career Readiness