Mamaroneck Test Scores Show Few Changes;
Annie Zimmer takes the Helm as Curriculum
Superintendent
by Joan R. Simon
(September 28, 2004) With help from charts, tables and other
statistics, the Mamaroneck School Board reviewed results
of the 2004 state-mandated tests for 4th and 8th grades at
their September 14 meeting. The average scores showed only
minor changes from previous years, with an 84.4% passing
rate on the 4th grade English Language Arts (ELA) test and
94.1% on the math. Results were lower, but similar to previous
years, for the Hommocks, with 74% of the students passing
the ELA test and 86% passing the math.
2004 Results of the NY State ELA Test
Fourth Grade
| Score Level |
Level 1:
Has serious difficulties |
Level 2:
Needs extra help |
Level 3:
Meets standards |
Level 4:
Exceeds standards |
Level 3+4: |
| Central |
0% |
13% |
66% |
21% |
87% |
| Chatsworth |
0% |
8% |
60% |
32% |
92% |
| Mamaroneck |
2% |
30% |
56% |
12% |
68% |
| Murray |
0% |
7% |
66% |
27% |
93% |
| District |
.6% |
15.1% |
61.4% |
23% |
84.4% |
| NY State |
5.9% |
32.0% |
47.5% |
14% |
61.5% |
2004 Results of the NY State Math Test
Fourth Grade
| Score Level |
Level 1:
Has serious difficulties |
Level 2:
Needs extra help |
Level 3:
Meets standards |
Level 4:
Exceeds standards |
Level 3+4: |
| Central |
1% |
1% |
46% |
52% |
98% |
| Chatsworth |
1% |
3% |
48% |
48% |
96% |
| Mamaroneck |
1% |
13% |
55% |
31% |
86% |
| Murray |
0% |
1% |
50% |
49% |
99% |
| District |
.8% |
5.1% |
49.7% |
44.4% |
94.1% |
| NY State 2003 |
4.8% |
17.0% |
47.5% |
30.6% |
78.1% |
| NY State 2004 |
3.9% |
17.0% |
50.4% |
28.7% |
78.7% |
Where the scores do seem to have slipped is at the highest
level - exceeds standards. For 4th grade math, for example,
this year 44% scored at the highest level, last year it was
57%. The drops occurred at each school. Board member Cecilia
Absher asked particularly about the 50% drop in ELA level
4 scores for Mamaroneck Avenue School from 2003 (12%) to
2004 (27%). Michael Kollmer, who is in charge of program
evaluation and research for the district, replied "These
tests change every year and it's also a different group of
students. You have to be careful in terms of taking a linear
approach."
Superintendent Sherry King added, "It is something
we are looking at quite specifically. It's a very important
lens for the conversation we are going to be having all year
on differentiation. What do we learn from this one set of
data, what other other kinds of data do have, and then what
do we do with instruction for students with very different
achievement levels?"
Two additional questions were raised – and answered.
Why do our students consistently do better in math than English?
And why do the scores in both drop in the middle school?
Mr. Kollmer explained “everyone in the state does
better on math than ELA.” He added, “The ELA
bar is set slightly higher.” As for the middle school
scores, he noted, "They build in a higher bar in middle
school, and it is actually called the ‘middle school
dip.’”
Despite the dip, Mr. Kollmer pointed out the significant
discrepancy between the district’s scores and the statewide
averages. For example, this year Mamaroneck exceeded the
state math score by 16 percentage points at the elementary
level and by 35 points in the middle school. So despite a
middle school test average that is 8 percentage points lower
than the elementary school results, “One would say
that our middle schoolers are high achievers in math,” he
remarked. Mr. Kollmer noted that overall in the district, “There
is a consistency in terms of performance, but an inconsistency
in terms of the models the state is using.”
Ethnic Breakdown of Test Results
The federal “No Child Left Behind” legislation
has required New York state and local school districts to
focus on tests results from specific ethnic and disadvantaged
groups. Some of these data were presented at the meeting.
Mr. Kollmer cautioned that reading too much into small numbers
can be misleading. For example, there were only nine black
students in Mamaroneck’s 4th grade testing group last
year.
4th Grade ELA and Math
Scores for Mamaroneck School District
Subgroups
| |
4th ELA
2001
|
4th ELA
2002
|
4th ELA
2003
|
4th ELA
2004
|
4th Math
2001
|
4th Math
2002
|
4th Math
2003
|
4th Math
2004
|
All Whites
|
90%
|
89%
|
90% (303)
|
89% (268)
|
96%
|
95%
|
96% (303)
|
97% (269)
|
All Hispanics
|
57%(37)
|
60%(30)
|
49%(49)
|
55%(53)
|
82%(44)
|
74%(35)
|
84%(50)
|
80%(56)
|
All African Americans
|
67%(12)
|
88%(8)
|
63%(8)
|
77%(9)
|
85%(13)
|
100%(8)
|
44%(9)
|
80%(10)
|
All Asians
|
|
|
100%(11)
|
95%(21)
|
|
|
100%(12)
|
100%(20)
|
|
|
Special Ed
|
68%(41)
|
58%(48)
|
37%(46)
|
|
82%(44)
|
86%(51)
|
69%(45)
|
|
Economically
Disadvantaged
|
30%(10)
|
60%(5)
|
7%(14)
|
|
82%(11)
|
50%(6)
|
62%(13)
|
|
The district’s Hispanic population, however, is larger,
and therefore the results are more significant, with 45%
of the fourth grade students not passing the ELA test. Almost
all of those not passing did score at level 2 (“needs
extra help") rather than level 1 (“has serious
difficulties"). Mr. Kollmer commented that the challenge
is “how do we move these students from level 2 [not
passing] to level 3 [passing]” and added, “That
is what we are going to be looking deeply at as we move forward.”
8th Grade ELA and Math
Scores for Mamaroneck School District
Subgroups
| |
8th ELA
2001
| 8th ELA
2002
|
8th ELA
2003
| 8th ELA
2004
|
8th Math
2001
|
8th Math
2002
|
8th Math
2003
|
8th Math
2004
|
All Whites
|
86%
|
82%
|
84% (308)
|
81%(277)
|
86%
|
91% (307)
|
89% (307)
|
90% (274)
|
All Hispanics
|
44%(34)
|
30%(27)
|
30%(37)
|
46%(54)
|
22%(41)
|
50%(32)
|
43%(42)
|
66%(58)
|
All African Americans
|
*(16)
|
21%(14)
|
26%(19)
|
25%(12)
|
*(16)
|
36%(14)
|
47%(17)
|
50%(12)
|
|
|
Special Ed
|
33%(49)
|
24%(50)
|
30%(60)
|
|
30%(50)
|
53%(49)
|
48%(60)
|
|
Economically
Disadvantaged
|
29%(14)
|
29%(14)
|
29%(14)
|
|
13%(15)
|
44%(16)
|
44%(16)
|
|
Mr. Kollmer stressed the need to “analyze the data
in terms of the actual items on the test and relate them
to the various different groups, including schools, classrooms
and subgroups of a population and be able to identify the
specific needs of individual children and to disseminate
that information to the staff in a timely basis so that it
will have an effect from level to level.”
Annie
Zimmer, the newly appointed Assistant Superintendent for
Curriculum and Instruction, added, “It’s important
to remember we’re talking about actual students in
actual classes about whom we have a lot of information beyond
what we’re seeing here.” She noted, “We’re
beginning to assemble a very complex and multifaceted picture
of students. These data we need to review in the context
of all the other ongoing assessments that are underway.”
As in other school districts, Mamaroneck has initiated
a number of alternative assessments at the elementary and
middle school level. Writing portfolios at the Hommocks and
the ERB (Educational Records Bureau) writing test for 5th
and 6th graders are in place. The Development Reading Assessment
is given throughout the elementary years to evaluate reading
performance. A district-wide math assessment has been developed
by teachers for grades four and five. A software program
called Tinkerplots allows the district to merge data from
multiple sources to develop a broader view of students’ progress.
For example, results from the 8th grade ELA exam have been
correlated with those of the Earth Science regent exam to
discover individual students’ strengths and weaknesses.
Ms. Zimmer comes to the Mamaroneck schools after 15 years
in Ridgewood, New Jersey where she was first a middle school
English teacher and later Supervisor of Curriculum and Instruction.
Last year she work in the New York City school system as
a Local Instruction Superintendent, supervising a network
of 11 schools that included the high-achieving Stuyvesant
High School as well as struggling schools in East Harlem
and Chinatown.
Speaking with the Gazette, Ms.
Zimmer stressed the importance of both “consistency
of practice” across the classrooms and schools, as
well as “differentiated instruction,” which requires
teachers to vary their approach, depending on the needs of
each individual student. She explained, “The whole
idea behind differentiated instruction is that in any given
class you have kids with a wide array of abilities, interests
and experiences.” She added, it’s all about “how
a teacher assesses those abilities, interests, and experiences
and develops an appropriate plan. It’s far more common
that two of you are ready to move on and I have 10 others
who need to hear it another way. So it’s really complex
to provide what that learner needs at that moment to take
the next step.”
Ms. Zimmer expressed a “sense of urgency” around the Hispanic population. “How
do we meet the needs of kids that come from homes that are not language-rich?” She
also stressed, “It’s not just about achieving standards but there’s
a real concern that that bar not become a ceiling. We know we have significant
numbers of kids who are so phenomenally capable and talented and how do we
provide opportunities for them to continue and to soar and to extend.”
|