Math Monitoring Report Comments - Part 1

Following is my review of the Math Monitoring Report.   You can read the Report at:

http://www.greenwichschools.org/uploaded/district/Board_of_Education/meeting_materials/2011-12_meetings/1-5-12_meeting/010512_1st_Reading_E003_MR_Mathematics_w_CS.pdf

I will break my comments into several parts.

______________________________________________________________

I reviewed the Greenwich Public Schools Monitoring Report – Student Achievement: Mathematics for January 5, 2012.  Comments are a mix of (1) data observations, (2) questions for clarification, and (3) editorial comments which serve to extend the analysis.  All data used is either from the report itself or from data downloaded from CSDE public data on www.cmtreports.com, www.ctreports.com, or http://solutions1.emetric.net/cmtpublic/Index.aspx.

I have refrained from structural or grammatical comments, except for those structural suggestions noted in the last paragraphs. 

I focused my review on items pertaining to grades 3-5, with a few comments pertaining to grades 6-8 where the data or analysis overlap with grades 3-5.  I only reviewed data for Goal and Advanced levels, and have excluded analysis of items relating to the Proficient level, given that the Connecticut CMT Proficient level is essentially equivalent to the NAEP Basic level for fourth grade (and Below Basic for eighth grade).  For a further discussion of this, please see: http://greenwichmath.blogspot.com/2011/11/what-do-standardized-tests-really-mean.html.  One can debate this, but my conclusion is that being “CT Proficient” is not going to allow you to succeed in college level mathematics.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CMT – Elementary

1.    Based on the referenced Table 1, the percentage of students at Advanced did increase 0.3%, but students at Goal dropped 0.4% (i.e., it did not “remain.. level”).

2.    Cos Cob percentages at Advanced and Goal increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, but are still below highs reached in 2008-09.  Julian Curtiss percentages at Advanced increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, but remain below levels reached from 2006-07 to 2008-09.  Students at Goal actually dropped from 79.0% to 75.5%.  Parkway percentages at Advanced increased from 2009-10 to 2010-11, but remain below levels reached from 2006-07 to 2008-09.  Students at Goal actually dropped from 84.2% to 79.8%.  These do not appear to be “Particularly strong gains.”

3.    Dundee percentages peaked in 2006-2007 and have shown a decline since, reaching a new low for both Advanced and Goal in 2010-2011.  Similarly, Glenville peaked in 2008-09 and reached lows for the five reported years in 2010-2011.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS/HIGHLIGHTS 2010-2011

1.    Elementary Advanced and Goal percentages reference Table 1, but use data from Table 2 (page 38).  The quoted percentages (Advanced – 49.2% and Goal – 81.8%) appear to refer to grades 3-8, not 3-5 (see Table 2).

2.    Using data from Table 1, Goal percentages are trending downward since a peak in 2006-7 at 81.0%, and actually dropped from 80.8% to 80.4% over the last year.  Advanced percentages appear to have risen 0.3%, but are still down 0.9% from the 2008-09 peak (see further discussion below).  Neither Advanced nor Goal percentages reached five year highs in 2010-11.