A New Standard for Proficiency:

College Readiness

July 28, 2010

1
 Higher education degree holders earn more and contribute
more to economic growth

9th-12th grade non-graduate $20,246

HS Grad (or GED) $27,963

Some college $31,947

Associate's $36,399

Bachelor's $48,097

Master's $58,522

Professional $87,775

Doctoral $80,776

$0 $20,000 $40,000 $60,000 $80,000 $100,000

Median Annual Earnings

Source: Current Population Survey, 2008 2

U.S. college graduation rates have stagnated relative to
the rest of the developed world
% College and university graduation rates in 1995 and 2006 (first-time graduation)
70
2006 1995 Decline in relative position
60 of U.S. from 1995 to 2006
2nd
50
15th
40

30

20

10

0
Denmark1

Germany1
Ireland

Hungary

Turkey
Norway1

United Kingdom1

Portugal1

Greece1
Switzerland1
OECD average

EU19 average
Japan

Spain
Italy
Iceland1

Poland1
Australia1
New Zealand1
Finland1

Netherlands1

Sweden1

Canada1,2

Austria1
Czech Republic1
Slovak Republic1
Israel

Slovenia
United States

1. Net graduation rate is calculated by summing the graduation rates by single year of age in 2006.
2. Year of reference 2005.
Countries are ranked in descending order of the graduation rates for tertiary-type A education in 2006.
Source: OECD. Table A3.2 See Annex 3 for notes (www.oecd.org/edu/eag2008)

3
 Nearly a quarter of students in all NYS two- and four-year
institutions of higher education take remedial coursework
New York State
First-Time Students Taking Remedial Coursework
By Type of Institution, 1998-2007

Year
100%
1998
1999
80%
2000
2-Year Institutions
All Institutions 4-Year Institutions 2001
60%
44% 2002

40% 2003
24% 2004
13% 2005
20%
2006
0% 2007
4-Year & 2-Year 2-Year 4-Year

Source: NYSED Administrative Data for all Public, Independent and Proprietary 2- and 4-year institutions of higher education 4
 The Regents raised standards a decade ago. Now the
Regents are embarking on a new era of reform to
improve student achievement
• Curriculum and professional development
• Teacher preparation and effectiveness
• School leader preparation and effectiveness
• World-class data system
• School turnaround
• NYSED a support-oriented agency
• State assessments

5
 Institutions of Higher Education around the state consider a
Regents score of 75 to 85 to be a bare minimum for college
readiness
Conversations with admissions directors of two- and four-year
public and private colleges in the Western NY, Central
NY, Hudson River, and New York City regions indicate that:
– 75 to 85 on the Regents is considered by selective schools (as
part of their holistic review of applicants) the lower threshold
for admissions;
– SUNY campuses use 85 as a mark of solid competence, below 75
is a mark of “inadequately prepared”;
– 75 on Regents is a threshold for placement in remediation for
CUNY; and
– 75 on Regents is considered roughly equivalent to a 500 on the
SAT and serves as a threshold for remediation.

6
 Students at the current Level 3 Proficiency standard on their 8th
grade Math exam have less than a 1 in 3 chance of earning an 80 on
their Math Regents

Current cut score

of 650 gives
students 30%
chance of scoring
80 on Regents

Source: NYSED Administrative Data, Math A Regents, 2006-2010 Cohort 7

 Students in high needs districts at the current Level 3 Proficiency
standard on their 8th grade ELA exam have about a 50-50 chance of
earning a 75 on their ELA Regents

Current cut score of

650 gives students in
high needs districts
57% chance of scoring
75 on Regents

Source: NYSED Administrative Data, English Regents, 2006-2010 Cohort 8

 Since 2006, New York’s 8th grade students have improved substantially
on the state math test, but their performance on the NAEP has
remained nearly flat

0.6
Change in SDs (std. deviations)

0.5

0.4
Change in performance

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

NYS_Public NY NAEP_Public

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP), 2005-2009 Mathematics Assessments. NYSED Administrative Data 9
 Possible reasons for this divergence include:

• Increased learning by students on content

tested by NYS tests;
• Focus of instruction on narrow strands of
content that appear on the NYS tests;
• Differences between what the NYS
assessments and NAEP measure; and
• Technical issues in the equating of scores from
year to year.

10
 We are improving the state assessments

• 2010
– Raised cut scores for Level 2 and Level 3 Proficiency
– Included 25 to 30 percent more tested performance
indicators on the Math assessment
– Added audit items
• 2011-2013
– Increase length of Math and ELA tests
– Test more new performance indicators
– Make test items more difficult to predict
– Improve quality of English Regents exam
• 2014-2015
– Common Core Assessments

11
 We are working on short- and long-term strategies to
improve the quality of our assessments

Applying procedures
(e.g. teaching students steps to
solve an algebraic equation)
Analyzing and
synthesizing material
(e.g. teaching a student how to
solve real world challenges through
the use of algebraic representation)

Test taking skills

(e.g. teaching students to eliminate
multiple choice options)
12
 The average scale scores on the English
Language Arts test this year were about the
same as last year in all grades

675
673

672
666
670

670
669
669

668
667

667

667

667
668

668
666

667
665

665

664
663

664

662
661
661

661

661
659
659
657
656

655

655
652

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

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

13
 The average scale scores on the Mathematics
test this year were about the same as last year
693 in all grades
692

689
688

687

686
685

685

684
683

683
680

681
680

680
680

678
677

677

677
676

675

675
674

674

671
668
666

666
663

663
657
656

652
651

Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

14
 New Performance Level Labels

Performance Level Level Label

Level 1 Below Standard
Level 2 Meets Basic Standard
Level 3 Meets Proficiency Standard
Level 4 Exceeds Proficiency Standard

15
The 2010 Math and ELA Proficiency Standard scores will be
changed from 650 where they have been set in the past
8th-grade Proficiency scores are set at a level that provides students a 75% chance of earning a
college-ready Regents score

3rd-7th grade Proficiency scores are set so that if a student makes a year’s worth of developmental
growth they will be on track for a college-ready Regents score

Grade Math ELA

8 673 658
7 670 664
6 674 662
5 674 666
4 676 668
3 684 666
16
The 2010 Math and ELA Basic Standard scores will also be
changed from where they have been set in the past
8th-grade Proficiency scores are set at a level that provides students a 75% chance of earning a
Regents score of 65, sufficient to earn a Regents diploma

3rd-7th grade Proficiency scores are set so that if a student makes a year’s worth of developmental
growth they will be on track for a Regents diploma

Grade Math ELA

8 639 627
7 639 642
6 640 644
5 640 647
4 636 637
3 661 643
17
 What does this mean in real terms?
We expect 8th grade students should be able to calculate a tip using
percentages.

Before, we would have labeled an 8th-grader with a 50-50 chance of

correctly answering a question like the one below, Proficient.

Now, we are expecting an 8th-grader to have a better than 3 in 4 chance

of being able to get this question right in order to be deemed Proficient.

18
GRADES 3-8 ELA RESULTS

19
Across Grades 3-8, the majority of students around the state
met or exceeded the new English Language Arts (ELA)
Proficiency standard

50.8%

47.30%

43.30%
40.00%
39.50%
38.90%
39.6%
38.1%

34.40%
35.9%
34.8%
31.4%

16.6%

11.20%
13.9%

12.8%
11.6%

10.4%
11.4%

7.70%
6.80%

9.1%
8.4%

6.0%

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

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

20
53 percent of grade 3-8 students across the state met or
exceeded the new ELA Proficiency standard.

Number of Students Tested

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Grades 3-8: 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283

77.4%
68.5%
61.5% 63.4%
53.2%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 21

 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
Number Tested 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Grade 3 = 185,603 198,457 195,777 198,367 196,604
Grade 4 = 190,951 197,499 197,016 195,942 199,530
Grade 5 = 201,262 202,133 198,022 197,856 197,448
Grade 6 = 204,249 204,463 200,505 197,996 198,135
Grade 7 = 210,735 211,839 207,278 202,805 200,183
Grade 8 = 212,320 213,971 209,180 207,494 204,383
Grades 3-8= 1,205,120 1,228,362 1,207,778 1,200,460 1,196,283

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%
68.1%
68.0%
67.1%

67.1%

66.9%

63.4%
63.2%

61.5%
60.4%

57.8%

57.0%
56.7%

56.4%

56.1%
54.7%

54.2%

53.2%
52.5%

51.0%
50.0%
49.3%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 22

14 percent of English Language Learners met or exceeded
the new ELA Proficiency standard

Number of ELL Students Tested

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Grades 3-8: 27,507 72,082 73,199 74,854 79,348

36.4%
25.1%
16.2% 18.0% 14.3%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

23
15 percent of Students with Disabilities met or exceeded the
new ELA Proficiency standard

Number of Students with Disabilities Tested

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

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

39.3%
20.2% 22.8% 27.9%
15.2%

Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

24
 The ELA results for racial/ethnic groups across grades 3-8
reveal the stubborn persistence of the tragic racial
achievement gap
2010 Total Students at Levels 3 and 4
Asian: 92,134
Black: 227,851
Hispanic: 253,304
American Indian/ Alaskan Native: 5,555
White: 611,513
Total Public: 1,196,283
86.6%

85.9%
79.6%

79.0%
77.6%

77.4%
75.6%

75.4%
71.8%
68.9%

68.5%
67.9%

64.8%

64.8%
64.3%

63.4%
61.5%
57.3%

53.2%
52.9%

52.6%

50.8%
46.5%
46.1%
45.6%
45.2%
42.4%

41.3%
36.8%
34.4%

Asian Black Hispanic American White Total Public

Indian/Alaskan
Native

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

25
 58 percent of girls, compared to 49 percent of
boys, met or exceeded the new ELA proficiency
standard

81.0%

74.0%
72.8%
67.5%
65.5%

64.5%
59.6%
57.7%
57.9%

48.6%
Females Males

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 26

 50.7%
50.8%
57.6%
68.8%

New York City

42.4%

37.3%
38.7%
46.4%
56.9%

Large City
29.1%

2006
52.4%
54.9%
60.6%
70.9%
43.1%

2007
Urban-Suburban
56.7%
62.0%

2008
66.8%

Rural
76.3%
49.6%

2009
69.2%
73.0%
76.7%
84.2%
Average

2010
61.5%

82.9%
84.8%
87.5%
Low

91.8%
74.9%
large cities and rural areas in ELA

61.5%
63.4%
68.5%
77.4%
Total Public

53.2%
Low-need communities continued to outperform

27
Charter schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their
students who met or exceeded the new ELA Proficiency
79.4%
standard

78.8%
76.8%

76.4%

76.1%
75.1%
68.8%
68.3%

68.1%
67.4%
65.1%

64.0%
60.8%

59.6%
56.9%

55.1%
55.2%

54.9%

54.6%
53.2%
51.7%
49.6%

48.2%
47.3%

44.7%
44.7%
44.4%

43.8%

43.0%
41.6%

40.8%
40.3%

40.4%
36.8%
35.7%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

28
 A smaller proportion of grade 3-8 students met or
exceeded the new ELA Proficiency standard in the Big
Five cities than in the rest of the state

77.4%
68.8%

68.5%
65.2%

63.4%
61.5%
57.6%

56.0%

55.6%
54.4%

53.2%
52.7%

51.1%
50.7%
50.8%

46.6%

46.7%
42.5%
42.4%

42.1%

39.2%
38.4%
38.4%

37.3%
34.5%

34.0%
30.1%

27.7%

25.5%
25.3%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
29
 A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or
exceeded the ELA Proficiency standard in the Big Five
cities than in the rest of the state

68.5%
57.0%

57.0%
56.1%
51.0%
50.4%

49.3%
43.1%
43.0%

42.5%
41.8%

41.0%

37.7%
37.5%
36.6%

35.1%
33.3%

31.8%
31.1%

30.8%

29.8%
28.3%
28.0%

27.8%
26.6%

26.3%

24.6%
21.3%
21.1%
20.9%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

30
 Fewer than 40 percent of economically
disadvantaged grade 3-8 students met or exceeded
the new ELA Proficiency standard

86.9%
79.4%
69.5%

68.8%
66.9%

66.1%
55.3%
50.3%

49.6%

39.1%

Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 31

GRADES 3-8 MATHEMATICS RESULTS

32
Across Grades 3-8, the majority of students around the state
met or exceeded the new Mathematics Proficiency standard

40.8%

36.50%
38.1%

35.90%
34.20%

33.20%
35.1%

30.60%
31.5%

29.40%

29.10%
30.8%

29.2%

27.10%
25.7%
24.0%

23.9%

18.20%
9.4%

9.3%
8.1%

8.2%
6.1%
5.4%

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

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

33
61 percent of grade 3-8 students across the state met or
exceeded the new Mathematics Proficiency standard.

86.4%
80.7%
72.7%
65.9%

61.0%
Grades 3-8 Math

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

34
 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
Number of Students Tested
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Grade 3 201,956 200,217 197,500 200,336 198,785
Grade 4 202,791 199,391 198,730 197,704 201,769
Grade 5 209,242 203,956 199,746 199,511 199,594
Grade 6 211,428 206,220 202,058 199,940 200,774
Grade 7 217,308 213,436 209,039 204,648 202,723
Grade 8 219,414 215,415 210,716 209,221 206,739
Grades 3-8 1,259,956 1,238,635 1,217,789 1,211,360 1,210,384
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%
68.4%

66.4%

65.9%
64.6%
63.8%

62.4%
61.3%

61.0%
60.4%
59.1%

58.8%
55.6%

54.8%
53.9%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 35
 31 percent of English Language Learners met or
exceeded the new Mathematics Proficiency standard

67.1%
58.4%
45.7%
38.6%

30.7%
Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

36
 25 percent of Students with Disabilities met or
exceeded the new Mathematics Proficiency standard

58.4%
47.8%
37.2%
30.4%

24.6%
Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

37
 The Mathematics results for racial/ethnic groups across
grades 3-8 reveal the stubborn persistence of the tragic racial
94.9% achievement gap
92.9%

92.2%
89.1%

88.3%

86.4%
85.2%

82.0%
81.7%

81.6%

80.7%
79.5%

76.4%
75.0%

73.0%

72.7%
71.1%
71.1%
65.9%

65.9%
61.8%

61.0%
60.5%
54.6%

53.8%
51.6%

49.5%
47.3%
45.8%

40.9%

Asian Black Hispanic American White Total Public

Indian/Alaskan
Native

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 38

Male and female students in grades 3-8 met or
exceeded the new Mathematics Proficiency
standard at about the same rate

87.5%

85.4%
81.9%

79.6%
73.5%

71.9%
66.2%

65.6%
61.8%

60.2%
Females Males

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 39

 57.0%
65.1%
74.3%
81.8%
54.0%

New York City

35.2%
41.0%
54.5%
64.7%

Large City
31.1%

55.0%
63.5%

2006
73.2%

Urban-
81.0%

Suburban
48.6%

2007
62.4%
70.2%
79.3%

Rural

2008
85.8%
54.3%

74.0%

2009
79.9%
86.9%
91.1%
Average

2010
67.6%

86.3%
90.0%
93.9%
Low

95.9%
80.8%

65.9%
72.7%
large cities and rural areas in Mathematics

80.7%
86.4%
Total Public

61.0%
Low-need communities continued to outperform

40
Charter schools saw similar declines in the proportion of their
students who met or exceeded the new Mathematics
Proficiency standard
96.1%
91.0%

89.4%

89.4%

89.4%
88.4%

86.8%

84.5%
83.7%
83.4%

82.1%

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

71.4%
70.8%
69.4%
67.9%

63.8%
61.6%

61.3%

60.3%

59.9%
59.7%

59.7%

59.1%

58.2%
53.7%
50.8%

50.4%
40.3%

40.0%
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Grade 8 Grades 3-8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

41
 A smaller proportion of grade 3-8 students met or
exceeded the Mathematics Proficiency standard in the
Big Five cities than in the rest of the state

86.4%
81.8%

80.7%
74.3%

73.8%

72.7%
65.9%
65.1%

65.1%
63.3%

63.4%

61.0%
58.2%
57.0%

54.6%
54.0%

53.1%
52.3%
50.0%

49.8%

41.5%
39.2%

39.4%
35.9%

33.2%

30.2%
29.8%
28.6%

28.0%

25.7%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 42
 A smaller proportion of Grade 8 students met or
exceeded the Mathematics Proficiency standard in the
Big Five cities than in the rest of the state

80.2%
71.3%

69.8%
59.6%

58.8%
57.8%

54.8%
53.9%

53.9%
46.3%
45.6%

42.9%

41.8%
38.9%

35.0%
33.8%

32.9%

32.2%
30.9%
28.9%

27.9%
25.8%

25.8%

20.4%
20.1%
20.0%
17.9%
17.0%

14.5%

13.4%

New York City Buffalo Rochester Syracuse Yonkers Total Public

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 43

Fewer than half of economically disadvantaged
grade 3-8 students met or exceeded the new
Mathematics Proficiency standard

92.4%
87.8%
81.9%
80.1%

74.4%
73.4%
72.3%
60.9%
56.0%

49.0%

Economically Disadvantaged Not Economically Disadvantaged

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 44

 What can we all do in 2010-11 to help students meet
the new Proficiency standards?

• Provide required Academic Intervention Services (AIS) for

students below 650, with a school option to offer AIS to other
students falling short of the new Proficiency threshold
• Implement Response to Intervention (RtI) with support from
the state’s Technical Assistance Center and regional RtI
specialists
• Review curriculum to ensure it is fully aligned with NYS
standards and performance indicators
• Encourage parents to monitor children’s screen-time and spend
more time reading and engaged in learning-rich activities
• Take advantage of Summer Reading Programs at the NYS
libraries to combat summer learning loss
45
A New Standard for Proficiency:
College Readiness

July 28, 2010

46
 Overarching education reform agenda
Curriculum and
assessment
• Consider for adoption Common
Core Standards for English
Language Arts and Mathematics
(July 2010)
• Develop additional 15% to
supplement the Common Core
Standards for ELA and Math
(Summer/Fall 2010)
• Strengthen 3-8 assessments—
lengthen 2011 tests and broaden
content coverage, issue new
Request for Proposals for 2012
and beyond (Summer/Fall 2010)
• Consider for adoption new NYS
Standards for ELA and Math
[Common Core + 15%] (Winter
2011)
• Launch development of
statewide curriculum models in
ELA and Math [including
formative assessments] (Spring
2011)
• Participate in development of
Common Assessments as
governing state in PARCC
consortium (2010-2011)
Teacher and school
leader preparation &
effectiveness
•Convene Teacher and Principal
Effectiveness Advisory Council
(TPEAC) (Fall 2010)
• Develop revised teaching
standards as basis for developing
performance assessments (Fall
2010)
• Obtain recommendations from
TPEAC on regulations for teacher
and principal performance
evaluation systems (Fall 2010)
• Issue Requests for Proposals for
clinically-rich pilots to prepare
teachers and school leaders for
schools that serve high-need
students (Fall 2010)
• Launch development of
performance assessments for
initial teacher and principal
certification (Fall 2010)
• Implement Innovative
Supplemental Compensation
Incentive Fund (Spring 2011)
Replace failing schools
• Approve/reject applications for
first cohort of persistently lowest-
achieving (PLA) schools (Summer
2010)
• Support first cohort PLA schools
in implementing turnaround
models (or in planning year, if
applicable) (2010-2011)
• Strengthen charter school
oversight to enhance
accountability for performance and
transparency (Summer/Fall 2010)
• Launch charter Request for
Proposals under new law
(Summer/Fall 2010)
Data system
• Complete K-12 and higher
education data exchanges with
SUNY and CUNY (Summer
2010/Fall 2010)
• Finalize design specifications for
electronic student transcripts and
early warning reports (Fall 2010)
• Plan for linkages with other
state agency data systems (Spring
2011)
• Launch development of
statewide instructional reporting
system (Spring 2011)
• Develop New York State student
growth model for use in
school/district accountability and
measuring educator effectiveness
(2010-2011)
47