School Report Cards 2004–2005

School Report Cards2004–2005

2

The Bottom Line• More schools are making Adequate

Yearly Progress.• Fewer students show serious academic

problems (Level 1) in elementary and middle school.

• More students are reaching higher standards (Level 3 and 4) in elementary school and in middle school math, but not middle school English.

3

The Bottom Line

• More students are graduating each year, and more are earning Regents Diplomas.

• But –• In the Class of 2005 – as we’ve seen – too

few graduated in 4 years. More graduate in 5 years.

• Data show graduation rates are closely tied to attendance rates. As attendance declines below 95%, graduation rates decline significantly.

4

The Bottom Line• The Class of 2005 was among the first to take the

higher standards middle school tests. Many scored in Level 1 then.

• The groups of students who came after them have performed much better in elementary and middle school. This indicates graduation rates should go up in the future.

• In fact, more students are passing Regents Exams, which indicates students are doing better in their courses.

• But there is no time to waste.

5

The Bottom Line

• The Regents will extend New York’s education reform with a focus on high school.

• They are considering setting graduation targets and attendance targets and holding schools accountable for them.

• They are focused on new reforms in teaching and in school safety.

6

More Schools Are Making Adequate Yearly Progress

• Schools make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) if they reach an annual target for improvement set by the state. This shows some good improvement overall.

• The number of indicators for which a school is accountable depends on:– the grade levels in the school and – the number of accountability groups.– The School AYP Rate is the percentage of indicators for

which a school is accountable and for which they made AYP. A K-5 school could have as many as 27 indicators, with 9 accountability groups (race/ethnicity, ELL, special education, etc.) on each of 3 tests.

7

Holding Schools Accountable: The Bottom LineHow Many Schools Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?

3,9454,305

42031

2,959

3,576

2003-04 2004-05

Number of SchoolsEvaluatedMade AYP

Special Evaluation

Overall, the percentage of schools making AYP on all measures increased from 75.0 to 83.1%.

8

Schools Making AYP – Elementary SchoolsA larger percentage of schools made AYP in 2004-05 than in 2003-04 in mathematics.

89.8

%

92.5

%

92.5

%

91.0

%

95.7

%

91.0

%

97.5

%

99.0

%

99.1

%English Math Science

2002-032003-042004-05

9

Schools Making AYP – Middle Schools A larger percentage of schools made AYP in 2004-05 than in 2003-04 in English and in science.

64.3

%

72.1

%

93.8

%

72.9

%

80.7

%

75.6

%

80.4

%

96.4

%

94.0

%English Math Science

2002-032003-042004-05

10

Schools Making AYP – High SchoolsMore schools made AYP in 2004-05 than in 2003-04 in English and math.

77

.2%

76

.6%

63

.7%

62

.7%

78

.3%

82

.3%

English Math

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

11

Nonetheless, as we saw in February, graduation rates for the Class of 2005 were too low.

12

Transferred to GED Programs

4.8%

Graduated64.1%

Dropped Out10.9%

Still Enrolled18.4%

IEP Diploma1.8%

All Students in Public Schools

2001 Cohort Students = 214,494

2001 Cohort After Four Years:64 percent of students in the 2001 cohort graduated by June 2005; 18 percent were still enrolled and 11% had dropped out.

13

Transferred to

GED Programs

5.7%

Graduated

71.2%

Dropped Out

15.3%

Still Enrolled

5.7%

IEP Diploma

2.1%


210,159 Students

2000 Cohort After 5 Years: 71 percent of students in the 2000 cohort graduated by June 2005, 6 percent were still enrolled.

14

Key Fact - Graduation rates are strongly tied to attendance rates.

15

89.4

%

90.5

%

92.7

%

94.7

%

95.2

%

95.8

%

92.7

%

NYC Large City Urban-Sub Rural Average Low TotalStudents

Average Attendance Rates for 2003-04

Public Schools OnlyAll Students

Average attendance rates decline with poverty. The average rates here may seem high but mask large differences among schools.

16

Schools with the lowest attendance rates also have the lowest graduation rates. Graduation rates tend to drop as schools fall below 95% attendance. The graduation rate decline gets very large the more attendance falls below 92%.

34

.6% 5

1.2

% 65

.4%

71

.5%

78

.7%

82

.7%

84

.7%

86

.4%

87

.3%

87

.2%

1<83.0

283.1-88.4

388.5-91.7

491.8-93.0

593.1-94.0

694.1-94.7

794.8-95.1

895.2-95.7

995.8-96.3

1096.4-100

Graduation Rates after four years for the 2001 cohort

Annual Attendance Rates [Schools are arranged by deciles.]

17

Who Are the Students? Performance in Elementary and Middle School

• Who are the students in the Class of 2005?• They are the students who took the 8th grade

tests soon after New York’s education reform – and higher standards tests – began. Many showed serious academic problems then.

• Who are the students who came after them and are now in high school?

• They are students who generally showed improved achievement in elementary and middle school.

Performance on the Elementary and Middle School

English and Math Tests by Income, Race/Ethnicity, and

Need/Resource Capacity Index

19

Elementary English: Achievement Gap Closing High Need Districts showed the biggest increase in the number of students meeting all the standards this year. High Need Districts have shown major improvement since 1999.

32.8

%

28.6

% 39.2

% 49.3

% 59.3

%

72.4

%

48.0

%

38.2

%

60.1

% 70.5

%

83.9

%

58.7

%

52.5

%

44.3

%

60.3

%

85.1

%

49.6

%

43.5

%

58.0

%

59.1

%

71.3

%

83.8

%

62.2

%

59.5

%

54.2

%

66.6

%

67.1

% 77.5

% 88.1

%

70.4

%

41.7

% 53.3

% 60.0

%

43.9

%

40.7

%

56.8

%

71.1

%

85.8

%

60.4

%

61.5

%

46.5

%

42.2

%

57.2

%

71.9

%

86.0

%

60.0

%61

.2%

72.8

%

64.3

%

NewYork City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

All Students Public Schools Only

20

Elementary-Level English: Fewer Students Show Serious Academic ProblemsIn the Big 5 Cities and in the Urban-Suburban Districts, substantially smaller numbers of students scored at Level 1 in 2005 than in 1999.

21

.3%

18

.4%

11

.1%

7.1

%

4.3

%

11

.4%1

9.1

%

17

.5%

8.7

%

5.4

%

3.5

%

1.1

%

9.9

%

18

.4%

18

.6%

9.1

%

7.5

%

4.7

%

1.5

%

10

.4%

11

.8%

6.4

%

6.1

%

3.4

%

1.3

% 5.8

%11

.7%

6.8

%

6.6

%

3.6

%

1.5

% 5.9

%11

.1%

6.3

%

5.9

%

3.7

%

1.3

% 5.4

%

1.7

%

8.1

%

1.1

%3.4

%

6.0

%

8.0

%

15

.5%

14

.5%

8.9

%8

.6%

7.8

%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban

Rural Average Low Total Public

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


Percentage of Students Scoring at Level 1

21

Elementary-Level English:In both income groups, the percentage of students meeting the standards increased in 2005.

Percent of Students Scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Percent of Students Scoring at Level 1

2005 Count of Tested Elementary-Level ELA Students:Disadvantaged: 93,838Not Disadvantaged: 102,004

42.4

% 75.7

%

43.9

% 77.2

%

51.8

% 78.5

%

46.1

% 73.6

%

57.3

%

82.6

%

Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

17.2

%

4.3

%14.2

%

2.7

%

8.9

%

2.3

%

9.8

%

3.2

%

8.6

%

2.4

%

Disadvantaged Not Disadvantaged

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


22

Elementary English: Major Progress forMinority StudentsFor the first time, more than half of Black and Hispanic students now meet all standards. The achievement gap has closed significantly since 1999.

57

.5%

25

.8%

26

.0%

35

.5%

61

.4%

67

.6%

36

.2%

36

.8%

46

.3%

72

.5%

69

.3%

39

.2%

39

.5%

41

.8%

73

.6%

74

.1%

41

.7%

42

.3%

45

.1%

73

.9%

77

.9%

48

.1%

47

.5%

54

.8%

74

.6%

77

.9%

43

.9%

45

.7%

46

.8%

73

.0%

53

.8%

57

.1%

58

.0%

79

.2%

83

.5%

Asian/PacificIslander

Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan

Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


23

Elementary-Level English:Major Progress for Minority Students Fewer Black and Hispanic students than ever before showed serious academic problems by scoring at Level 1. Since 1999, the decline has been significant.

6.8

%

22

.0%

24

.2%

16

.3%

4.4

%

5.4

%

19

.9%

20

.6%

15

.0%

3.4

%5.8

%

19

.5%

19

.6%

18

.2%

4.4

%

9.8

%

10

.0%

8.9

%

3.3

%

10

.8%

8.9

%

9.8

%

3.5

%

9.6

%

8.2

%

9.2

%

3.4

%

3.4

%

12

.3%

15

.2%

15

.7%

4.1

%

2.4

%2

.0%

1.8

%

Asian/Pacific Islander Black Hispanic AmericanIndian/Alaskan Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



24

Elementary-Level Mathematics The percentage of students achieving all the standards increased in every need/resource capacity category. Since 1999, New York City and the Big Four have achieved increases of about 25 percentage points.

49

.6%

48

.8% 6

1.5

% 71

.3%

79

.1%

66

.7%

46

.2%

43

.5%

61

.8% 70

.5%

78

.0% 9

0.3

%

65

.0%

51

.8%

50

.1%

67

.1%

73

.9% 82

.0% 92

.6%

69

.1%

52

.0%

47

.1%

63

.0%

69

.5% 79

.1% 9

0.7

%

67

.6%

66

.7%

62

.3%

76

.4%

80

.0%

86

.9%

94

.6%

78

.1%

68

.1%

66

.1% 7

7.1

%

81

.4%

87

.5%

94

.7%

79

.1%

77

.4%

73

.1% 82

.0%

85

.2%

90

.6%

95

.9%

84

.8%

90

.3%

New YorkCity

Large City Urban-Suburban


1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


25

Elementary-Level MathematicsThe percentage of students with serious academic problems has declined. The biggest declines have been in the Big Five.

19

.3%

16

.0%

9.5

%

4.9

%

3.3

%

10

.0%

18

.4%

16

.4%

7.5

%

3.9

%

2.8

%

0.8

%

9.2

%

16

.5%

14

.7%

7.1

%

4.1

%

2.6

%

0.8

%

8.5

%

8.3

%

4.5

%

3.2

%

1.9

%

0.6

%

4.8

%

7.1

%

6.2

%

3.7

%

2.5

%

1.5

%

0.6

%

3.9

%5.4

%

5.4

%

3.5

%

2.5

%

1.4

%

0.6

%

3.1

%

1.1

%

7.2

%

0.9

%

2.7

%4.6

%

7.2

%

13

.8%

13

.2%

8.7

%



1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



26

Elementary-Level MathematicsComparing 2005 with 2001, more disadvantaged students are meeting the standards and fewer are scoring at Level 1.



2005 Count of Tested Elementary-Level Mathematics Students:Disadvantaged: 103,648Not Disadvantaged: 103,568

52.7

%

84.2

%

50.8

%

82.7

%

69.1

% 90.0

%

67.5

% 87.5

%

76.8

% 93.0

%


14.4

%

3.2%12

.7%

2.3%7.0%

1.5%6.5%

2.0%5.1%

1.2%


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


27

Elementary-Level Mathematics:Achievement Gap is Closing The percentage of Black and Hispanic students meeting all the standards improved significantly this year. The percent doing so has increased by over 30 percentage points since 1999.

81

.3%

42

.5%

44

.9% 5

8.6

%

81

.1%

80

.5%

38

.9%

42

.5% 54

.4%

80

.2%

83

.4%

45

.7%

49

.3%

56

.9%

83

.8%

83

.1%

45

.1%

49

.3%

55

.1%

80

.7%

88

.5%

61

.7%

65

.2%

69

.6%

88

.1%

89

.5%

63

.2%

66

.5%

72

.1%

88

.8%

93

.3%

73

.1%

75

.6%

78

.8% 9

1.6

%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


28

Elementary-Level Mathematics The percentage of Black and Hispanic students with serious academic problems has declined substantially since 1999.

3.9

%

20

.9%

20

.7%

11

.3%

3.1

%

3.4

%

20

.0%

19

.3%

13

.1%

2.6

%

3.3

%

18

.2%

16

.4%

15

.2%

2.5

%

2.9

%

15

.2%

13

.0%

12

.4%

2.7

%

2.6

%

9.1

%

8.9

%

7.0

%

1.9

%

2.0

%

7.5

%

7.2

%

6.8

%

1.5

%

1.6

%

5.8

%

5.6

%

4.4

%

1.4

%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



29

Middle-Level MathematicsDespite a decline in 2005, more students overall are achieving all the standards now than in 1999.

22

.8%

17

.0% 26

.8% 37

.1% 47

.0%

62

.9%

37

.9%

22

.3%

16

.5% 2

9.5

% 40

.9% 51

.1%

67

.4%

40

.3%

22

.8%

14

.3%

29

.2% 39

.2% 49

.2%

68

.0%

39

.4%

29

.8%

19

.6%

36

.8% 47

.8% 5

9.0

%

77

.9%

47

.7%

34

.4%

23

.7%

41

.6% 50

.8% 6

2.7

%

79

.5%

51

.0%

42

.4%

28

.7%

46

.9% 5

8.5

% 69

.1% 8

2.6

%

57

.7%

40

.8%

25

.2%

43

.8% 54

.1% 6

6.7

%

82

.3%

55

.5%

New YorkCity



1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



30

Middle-Level MathematicsIn each need/resource capacity category more students achieved at least partial proficiency in the standards in 2005 than in 1999.

52

.3%

51

.4% 62

.7% 7

7.2

%

82

.9%

90

.5%

70

.8%

55

.7%

54

.1% 6

9.2

% 82

.7%

87

.3%

93

.9%

74

.9%

55

.8%

49

.4%

67

.5% 80

.4%

85

.7%

93

.7%

73

.6%

66

.9%

59

.2% 7

5.6

% 85

.9%

90

.4%

96

.5%

80

.5%

71

.8%

65

.7% 8

1.0

%

88

.0%

91

.9%

96

.7%

83

.3%

77

.5%

71

.0% 82

.7%

89

.5%

93

.0%

96

.4%

86

.2%

79

.6%

69

.7% 8

3.3

%

89

.7%

93

.2%

97

.1%

87

.0%

New YorkCity



1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Percentage of Students Scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4


31

Middle-Level Mathematics Fewer Students Show Serious Academic ProblemsCompared with 2004, the percentage of students with serious academic problems declined in New York City and most districts, but increased slightly in the Big Four.

47.8

%

48.6

%

37.4

%

22.9

%

17.1

%

9.5%

29.2

%

44.3

%

45.9

%

30.8

%

17.3

%

12.6

%

6.2%

25.1

%

44.2

%

50.5

%

32.5

%

19.6

%

14.4

%

6.4%

26.4

%

22.5

% 29.0

%

10.5

%

7.0%

13.9

%20.4

% 30.3

%

16.7

%

10.3

%

6.8% 13

.0%

33.2

% 40.8

%

24.4

%

14.2

%

9.7%

3.6%

19.5

%28.2

% 34.3

%

19.0

%

12.0

%

8.1%

3.3%

16.7

%

17.3

%

3.6%

2.9%

New YorkCity



1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


32

Middle-Level MathematicsThe performance of disadvantaged students improved steadily between 2001 and 2005.



2005 Count of Tested Middle-Level Mathematics Students:Disadvantaged: 101,050Not Disadvantaged: 120,138

19.6

% 52.0

%

26.5

% 62.9

%

34.2

% 67.8

%

39.4

% 68.2

%

38.5

% 70.0

%


44.3

%

14.9

%

34.2

%

9.1

%25.8

%

6.7

%23.2

%

8.4

%

20.9

%

6.3

%


2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


33

Middle-Level Mathematics The percentage of students meeting all the standards declined in each racial/ethnic group in 2005. However, it increased overall between 1999 and 2004. Despite the decrease in 2005, Black and Hispanic students were more than twice as likely to meet the standards in 2005 as in 1999. However, their performance is still too low.

58

.6%

12

.9%

15

.0%

23

.5%

49

.3%

58

.6%

13

.5%

15

.3%

25

.6%

53

.8%

58

.5%

13

.4%

16

.0%

26

.2%

52

.5%66

.9%

20

.9%

22

.9% 35

.4%

62

.2%

69

.5%

26

.3%

28

.3%

38

.2%

65

.1%

76

.4%

30

.7%

35

.6%

42

.1%

68

.9%

46

.8%

70

.9%

36

.7%

33

.1%

76

.8%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


34

84

.2%

43

.7%

46

.4%

67

.1%

83

.8%

86

.2%

49

.1%

51

.0% 6

6.8

%

88

.3%

85

.6%

46

.8%

52

.7% 65

.0%

86

.9%

90

.8%

60

.3%

63

.5% 74

.8% 9

1.3

%

90

.5%

67

.9%

69

.1% 80

.7% 92

.5%

93

.5%

72

.8%

75

.3%

81

.8% 93

.5%

94

.0%

74

.5%

78

.0%

82

.9% 93

.8%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Middle-Level Mathematics The percentage of Black and Hispanic students scoring at Level 2 or above increased by over 30 percentage points between 1999 and 2005.



35

15

.8%

56

.3%

53

.6%

32

.9%

16

.2%

13

.9%

50

.9%

48

.9%

33

.2%

11

.6%

14

.4%

53

.2%

47

.4%

35

.0%

13

.1%

9.2

%

39

.8%

36

.5%

25

.2%

8.6

%

9.5

%

32

.1%

30

.9%

19

.3%

7.5

%

6.5

%

27

.2%

24

.6%

18

.2%

6.5

%

6.0

%

25

.5%

22

.0%

17

.1%

6.2

%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Middle-Level Mathematics In all racial/ethnic groups, the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 has decreased since 1999, including this year. The percentage of Black, Hispanic, Asian and White students scoring at Level 1 has been reduced by more than half.



36

Middle-Level English Statewide, the percentage of students meeting the standards increased by less than one percentage point. Rural, average and low need districts achieved two to four percentage point increases. New York City declined, and the Big 4 stayed about the same.

35

.3%

28

.8% 37

.1% 45

.8% 5

5.8

%

69

.2%

48

.1%

32

.5%

24

.3% 33

.5% 41

.8% 5

2.4

%

67

.5%

44

.9%

33

.1%

24

.3% 3

4.5

%

41

.0% 5

1.8

%

68

.6%

44

.9%

29

.5%

19

.3%

33

.5% 4

3.2

% 53

.3%

70

.5%

44

.3%

32

.6%

22

.5%

36

.7%

41

.0% 5

3.1

%

69

.6%

45

.3%

23

.3%

37

.3%

42

.9% 5

4.8

%

71

.1%

47

.2%

32

.8%

23

.5%

38

.9%

45

.3%

58

.1%

75

.2%

48

.1%

35

.6%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

All Students

The percentage of students scoring at Levels 3 and 4

Public Schools Only

37

Middle-Level EnglishIn every category except Large Cities, 90 percent or more of students met some of the standards.

82

.8%

84

.3%

88

.2%

92

.8%

95

.3%

97

.8%

90

.6%

89

.8%

93

.3%

96

.8%

86

.6%

77

.0%

75

.4%

81

.9% 88

.9%

92

.6%

97

.2%

86

.4%

87

.4%

84

.4%

90

.8%

94

.9%

96

.7%

99

.0%

92

.8%

85

.6%

80

.5% 88

.6%

91

.4%

94

.6%

98

.1%

90

.8%

88

.6%

84

.0%

90

.6%

92

.5%

95

.9%

98

.3%

92

.6%

89

.6%

84

.7% 91

.8%

93

.7%

96

.5%

98

.7%

93

.4%

83

.1%

76

.3%

76

.4%

New York City Large City Urban-Suburban Rural Average Low Total Public

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

All Students

The percentage of students scoring at Levels 2, 3, and 4

Public Schools Only

38

Middle-Level English: Fewer Students Have ProblemsNew York City and High Need Urban-Suburban Districts have significantly reduced the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 between 1999 and 2005.

17

.1%

15

.7%

11

.8%

7.2

%

4.7

%

9.4

%

23

.6%

23

.7%

16

.9%

10

.2%

6.8

%

3.3

%

13

.4%

23

.1%

24

.6%

18

.2%

11

.1%

7.4

%

2.8

%

13

.6%

19

.5%

11

.3%

8.7

%

5.4

%

1.9

%

9.2

%11

.4% 1

6.0

%

9.4

%

7.5

%

4.1

%

1.8

%

7.4

%10

.4% 1

5.3

%

8.2

%

6.3

%

3.5

%

1.3

%

6.6

%

2.2

%

12

.6%

15

.5%

9.3

%

5.1

%

3.3

%

1.0

%

7.2

%

14

.5%



1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

The percentage of students scoring at Level 1

39

Middle-Level EnglishThe percentage of disadvantaged students scoring at Level 1 in 2005 was half the percentage in 2001.



2005 Count of Tested Middle-Level ELA Students:Disadvantaged: 95,868Not Disadvantaged: 119,188

26.7

%

56.2

%

24.4

%

58.2

%

28.9

%

59.3

%

29.2

% 57.5

%

29.9

%

63.1

%


2001 2002 2003 2004 200524

.0%

7.2%13

.2%

2.9%15

.3%

4.0%12

.9%

4.2%11

.1%

2.8%



40

Middle-Level English: Achievement Gap Persists A large performance gap still exists between White and Asian students and students in other racial/ethnic groups.

62

.1%

26

.1%

27

.1%

29

.6%

58

.0%

58

.7%

22

.9%

24

.8%

32

.1%

55

.4%

59

.2%

23

.7%

26

.1%

27

.9%

55

.2%

57

.5%

21

.0%

22

.4%

30

.2%

56

.9%

58

.7%

25

.9%

25

.8%

30

.4%

56

.3%

63

.6%

27

.1%

29

.5%

32

.2%

58

.0%

62

.0%

26

.0%

28

.1%

31

.8%

61

.1%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005



41

Middle-Level EnglishMore Black and Hispanic students scored at Level 2 or higher in 2005 than in any previous year.

Public Schools Only

94

.1%

80

.4%

80

.3%

88

.3%

95

.7%

91

.0%

72

.7%

73

.5%

82

.0%

93

.7%

91

.6%

72

.8%

74

.4%

80

.1% 93

.2%

96

.2%

84

.9%

85

.8%

90

.5%

97

.1%

94

.8%

83

.1%

83

.5%

85

.4%

95

.2%

96

.5%

86

.1%

87

.4%

87

.4%

96

.1%

96

.3%

87

.7%

88

.5%

89

.9%

96

.7%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


All Students

42

Middle-Level English: Fewer Have Serious Problems Fewer Black and Hispanic students show serious academic problems, scoring at Level 1.

5.9

%

19

.6%

19

.7%

11

.7%

4.4

%9.0

%

27

.3%

26

.5%

18

.0%

6.3

%

13

.4%

8.3

%

27

.2%

25

.7%

19

.9%

6.8

%

13

.6%

16

.9%

16

.5%

14

.6%

4.8

% 9.2

%

3.4

%

13

.9%

12

.5%

12

.6%

3.9

% 7.4

%

3.7

%

12

.3%

11

.5%

10

.1%

3.3

% 6.6

%9.4

%

7.2

%

2.9

%

9.6

%

14

.2%

15

.1%

3.8

%5

.2%



Native

White Total Public

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


The percentage of students scoring at Level 1

43

What Does Elementary, Middle School Achievement Show Us?• Many students in the Class of 2005 –

those who took the 8th grade tests in 2001 – were not prepared for high school work.

• Rising achievement for more recent groups of students should help raise future graduation rates.

• However, we must – and will – still do more for all students now. (More on that later)

44

High School Student Achievement

• Too many students in the Class of 2005 did not take the Regents Exams in 4 years because they were not prepared for high school work, failed their courses, and did not earn enough credits. Many are still in school.

45

More students who entered 9th grade in 2001 passed the Regents Exams than graduated in 4 years. But too many students were not tested because they failed their courses.

ExaminationPercent

Not Tested

Percent Scoring

0-54 55-64 65-100

English 21.0% 5.0% 6.2% 67.9%

Mathematics 20.1% 5.7% 7.4% 66.9%

Global History 18.7% 6.7% 6.8% 67.7%

U.S. History 23.6% 4.6% 6.4% 65.3%

Science 17.4% 4.6% 5.6% 72.3%

46

Regents Examination Performance of Dropouts Who Entered Grade 9 in 2001-02

Percent of Tested Students Scoring Examination

Not Tested 0-54 55-64 65-100

New York City English 87.2% 5.8% 2.4% 4.7% Mathematics 83.3% 7.4% 2.8% 6.5% Global History 75.8% 12.7% 3.7% 7.8% U.S. History 91.5% 4.0% 1.6% 2.9% Science 75.0% 8.9% 5.3% 10.7% Rest of State English 83.8% 2.9% 2.4% 11.0% Mathematics 71.0% 7.1% 5.1% 16.9% Global History 65.0% 9.1% 5.0% 20.9% U.S. History 86.0% 2.6% 1.9% 9.4% Science 55.3% 7.3% 5.5% 31.9% Total Public English 85.5% 4.3% 2.4% 7.9% Mathematics 77.0% 7.2% 4.0% 11.8% Global History 70.3% 10.8% 4.4% 14.5% U.S. History 88.7% 3.3% 1.8% 6.2% Science 64.9% 8.1% 5.4% 21.5%

Most of the students who entered 9th grade in 2001 and dropped out after 4 years typically had not taken Regents Exams. Many who took them passed. Again, they did not take them because they did not pass their courses.

47

As of June 30, 2005

% of Students who began 9th Grade in 2001 passing Regents Exams

at 55 After 4 years

% of Students who began 9th Grade in 2000

passing Regents Exams at 55 After 5

years

English 79.3 77.8

Math 79.9 75.5

Global 79.5 78.5

U.S. History 76.5 76.1

Science 82.6 80.5

Students who started 9th grade in 200l appear to have passed Regents Exams at somewhat higher rates after 4 years than students who started 9th grade in 2000 after 5 years.

Overall, more students now are taking and passing Regents Exams each year.

49

Regents EnglishThe number of students passing the Regents English Exam has increased since 1996, and especially since 2002.

114 123135

176 166177 175 183

196

153 150

91102 105

123 118136 130

140152 151

191

173171157

120113

159 152

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Num

ber

in T

hous

ands

Tested 55-100 65-100

All Students

50

Regents MathematicsThe number of students taking and passing Regents Math has increased greatly, especially since 2002.

158 158171

192 192

166

212 217 227

120130 139 146

133

107

158

114 106116 119 124

105

81

131

176 177

204

204201

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Num

ber

in T

hous

ands

Tested 55-100 65-100

Data for 1999–2002 include both Mathematics A and Sequential Mathematics, Course I.

Data for 2003 through 2005 are for Mathematics A only.

All Students

51

Regents Global History and GeographyThe number of students passing Global History has increased significantly since 2002.

122 131146

157174

187206

220

181

92 86104

116

150136

148 152 153

206192174167

161149134

121103

173

128

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Num

ber

in T

hous

ands

Tested 55-100 65-100

The data for 2001 through 2003 are for the Regents Global History and Geography examination only. The data for 2000 are for both the Regents Global History and Geography and Global Studies examinations. The data for previous years are for Regents Global Studies only.

All Students

52

Regents U.S. History & Government The number of students passing U.S. History has increased greatly since 2000.

108119 126

139 144

176 179191

87 8696 104 108

121135

150 142 145

173164 164

156165158

141

101 111127122

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Num

ber

in T

hous

ands

Tested 55-100 65-100

All Students

53

Regents Living Environment/BiologyThe number of students passing the Biology Exam has increased greatly since 2000 and made a big jump this year.

110 106 114 123 129

184 178 188 185207

75 80 81 88 91

144 154 151 146 156

179165168167164

92 95105 109

0

50

100

150

200

250

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Num

ber

in T

hous

ands

Tested 55-100 65-100

All Students

Data for 1996 through 2000 are for the Regents Biology examination. Data for 2001 are for both the Regents Biology and the Regents Living Environment examinations. Data for 2002 through 2005 are for the Regents Living Environment examination.

54

More students are graduating each year and more are reaching higher standards and earning Regents Diplomas.

55

Graduates Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, the number of high school graduates has increased, and especially in the past two years.

139,

000

139,

500

141,

500

143,

100

136,

800

140,

400

141,

600

143,

800

153,

200

153,

200 1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

All Students

Counts for 1995-96 through 2000-01 include January, June, and August graduates of the reporting year. Beginning in 2001-02, August graduates are included with January and June graduates of the next school year.

56

131,

291

131,

278

131,

727

133,

194

132,

861

131,

147

133,

247

141,

766

57,4

70

59,8

49

62,5

52

67,6

68

70,1

27

76,0

56

78,6

64

84,1

98

102,

608

141,

412

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HS Graduates Regents Diplomas

General-Education Students: Total Number of Diplomas Awarded and Number of Regents Diplomas 1996-97 to 2004-05 School Years

More general-education graduates are reaching higher standards. More are earning Regents Diplomas. The increase in Regents Diplomas last year was especially large, because for the first time, students could earn a Regents Diploma passing 5 Regents Exams and an Advanced Regents Diploma with 8 Regents Exams.

57

7,6

99

8,2

53

8,6

38

8,7

02

9,0

23

9,0

31

10

,57

1

11

,43

6

62

3

86

4

1,1

15

1,3

29

1,8

39

2,2

57

2,8

65

4,6

73

11

,79

0

77

4

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

HS Graduates Regents Diplomas

Students with Disabilities: Total Number of Diplomas Awarded and Number of Regents Diplomas 1996-97 to 2004-05 School Years

More graduates with disabilities are reaching higher standards. More are earning Regents Diplomas. The increase in Regents diplomas last year was especially large, because for the first time, students could earn a Regents Diploma passing 5 Regents Exams and an Advanced Regents Diploma with 8 Regents Exams.

58

To Recap –

Key Facts to Remember

59

Holding Schools Accountable: The Bottom LineHow Many Schools Made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?

3,9454,305

42031

2,959

3,576

2003-04 2004-05

Number of SchoolsEvaluatedMade AYP

Special Evaluation

Overall, the percentage of schools making AYP on all measures increased from 75.0 to 83.1%.

60

Transferred to GED Programs

4.8%

Graduated64.1%

Dropped Out10.9%

Still Enrolled18.4%

IEP Diploma1.8%


2001 Cohort Students = 214,494

2001 Cohort After Four Years:64 percent of students in the 2001 cohort graduated by June 2005; 18 percent were still enrolled and 11% had dropped out.

61

Schools with the lowest attendance rates also have the lowest graduation rates. Graduation rates tend to drop as schools fall below 95% attendance. The graduation rate decline gets very large the more attendance falls below 92%.

34.6

% 51.2

% 65.4

%

71.5

%

78.7

%

82.7

%

84.7

%

86.4

%

87.3

%

87.2

%1

<83.02

83.1-88.4

388.5-91.7

491.8-93.0

593.1-94.0

694.1-94.7

794.8-95.1

895.2-95.7

995.8-96.3

1096.4-100

Graduation Rates after four years for the 2001 cohort

Annual Attendance Rates [Schools are arranged by deciles.]

62

Elementary English: Major Progress forMinority StudentsFor the first time, more than half of Black and Hispanic students now meet all standards. The achievement gap has closed significantly since 1999.

57

.5%

25

.8%

26

.0%

35

.5%

61

.4%

67

.6%

36

.2%

36

.8%

46

.3%

72

.5%

69

.3%

39

.2%

39

.5%

41

.8%

73

.6%

74

.1%

41

.7%

42

.3%

45

.1%

73

.9%

77

.9%

48

.1%

47

.5%

54

.8%

74

.6%

77

.9%

43

.9%

45

.7%

46

.8%

73

.0%

53

.8%

57

.1%

58

.0%

79

.2%

83

.5%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


63

15

.8%

56

.3%

53

.6%

32

.9%

16

.2%

13

.9%

50

.9%

48

.9%

33

.2%

11

.6%

14

.4%

53

.2%

47

.4%

35

.0%

13

.1%

9.2

%

39

.8%

36

.5%

25

.2%

8.6

%

9.5

%

32

.1%

30

.9%

19

.3%

7.5

%

6.5

%

27

.2%

24

.6%

18

.2%

6.5

%

6.0

%

25

.5%

22

.0%

17

.1%

6.2

%



Native

White

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Middle-Level Mathematics In all racial/ethnic groups, the percentage of students scoring at Level 1 has decreased since 1999, including this year. The percentage of Black, Hispanic, Asian and White students scoring at Level 1 has been reduced by more than half.



64

Graduates Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, the number of high school graduates has increased, and especially in the past two years.

139,

000

139,

500

141,

500

143,

100

136,

800

140,

400

141,

600

143,

800

153,

200

153,

200 1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

All Students

Counts for 1995-96 through 2000-01 include January, June, and August graduates of the reporting year. Beginning in 2001-02, August graduates are included with January and June graduates of the next school year.

65

The Bottom Line

• We have a mixed picture with progress for later classes after the students who first took the higher standards elementary and middle school tests –but recent graduation rates that are much too low.

• There is no time to waste.

66

What Schools Are Doing

• Analyzing academic needs of all entering 9th graders who scored in Level 1 on 8th grade English and Math, placing place them in intensive catch-up classes, and matching specific services to each student’s way of learning

• Providing extra training to middle & high school teachers to make sure they know how to teach reading

• Making sure entering 9th graders get to know several adults well

• Calling the homes of students with repeated absences, making home visits if needed

67

What Schools Are Doing• Working with health, service, and community

organizations and colleges to support students• Analyzing data to determine the best solutions for

students in different situations• Creating different high schools, with individualized

classes, for disengaged students who are not succeeding in the regular high school

• Creating smaller schools with learning environments geared to the needs of individual students

• Teaching students how to manage their time, take notes, and study

68

What the Regents Are ConsideringTo Reform High School

• Set graduation targets. Measure results. Raise the targets each year.

• Set attendance targets. Measure results.• Hold schools accountable for meeting the targets.

Accelerate SURR requirements.• Reform teaching by requiring, at a date certain, all

teachers to teach only in their certification area.• Monitor safety plans and violent incident data and

require reforms.

Documents

School Report Cards 2004–2005