CONTACT: JIM MORRIS |
Vol. 42, No. 54
August 1, 2008
Middle-Schoolers Make Strong Gains on 2008 MAP Tests;
More Schools and Districts Do Not Meet “AYP” Targets
Gov Blunt: “We have made progress. More must be done.”
While elementary students (grades 3-5) had mixed results in reading and math on this year’s mandatory MAP tests, middle-schoolers (grades 6-8) posted some of the biggest gains that those grade levels have seen since MAP testing began 10 years ago.
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education today released 2008 MAP test results for all public schools in Missouri. (Summary) (District and School Results)
State education officials also released new statistics about the number of schools and districts that met “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) targets this year. As expected, the list of schools and districts that did not meet AYP goals grew, as a result of increasingly stringent requirements that are part of federal law.
“We are especially pleased with this year’s results from the middle grades (6-8). The percentage of students who scored at the proficient or advanced levels increased significantly in both communication arts and math. We had seen little or no movement in the scores for these grade levels in recent years, so this is an encouraging sign,” said Commissioner of Education D. Kent King.
There also was a big gain – 5.1 percentage points – in the percentage of tenth-graders who scored at the proficient or advanced levels on the math exam, King noted.
“My administration has made it a priority to invest in critical subject areas for our students including math, engineering, technology and science (METS),” said Gov. Matt Blunt. “We have made progress, particularly by increasing funding for K-12 education by $440 million, a 17.2 percent increase. We have also provided significant funding and support for our METS initiatives. But more must be done to help our students improve their performance and excel beyond the benchmarks to make certain Missouri, and Missouri students, are in a stronger position to compete in the global economy.”
Last spring, all public school students in grades 3-8 took the MAP tests in communication arts and mathematics. The communication arts exam also was given in grade 11; the math exam in grade 10. Test results are used by the state to evaluate public schools for accreditation purposes and to satisfy the accountability requirements of federal law (No Child Left Behind).
Adequate Yearly Progress
Only one-fourth of all school districts and about 40 percent of school buildings met this year’s proficiency targets for adequate yearly progress (AYP). Under the federal No Child Left Behind law, states must set annual AYP targets that become progressively more difficult.
This year, 51 percent of all students had to score at the “proficient” level or higher for a school to meet the AYP target in communication arts. For mathematics, the target was 45 percent.
A preliminary list of all the districts and schools that did not meet AYP this year is attached.
Out of 2,203 school buildings in the state this year (including charter schools) 1,168 were designated as “Title I” schools. These buildings received federal “Title I” funding to assist students from low-income families. Under the NCLB law, Title I schools that do not meet AYP goals for two or more years face penalties, such as allowing students to transfer to a higher-performing building or providing after-school tutoring.
More than half (55.2%) of the Title I schools in the state did not meet AYP goals this year, according to preliminary state data. In all, 368 Title I schools are likely to have some level of sanction during the coming year, compared to 204 buildings last year. The sanctions are listed in the following chart.
Title I Schools in “School Improvement”
Total Number of Public Schools |
2,203 |
Total Number of Title I Schools |
1,168 |
Title I Schools in School Improvement: |
269 |
School Improvement Level 1 |
136 |
School Improvement Level 1, Delayed |
34 |
School Improvement Level 2 |
92 |
School Improvement Level 2, Delayed |
7 |
Title I Schools in Corrective Action: |
25 |
School Improvement Level 3, Corrective Action Year 1 |
19 |
School Improvement Level 3, Corrective Action, Delayed |
6 |
Title I Schools in Restructuring: |
74 |
School Improvement Level 4, Restructuring, Implementation |
0 |
School Improvement Level 4, Restructuring, Planning |
51 |
School Improvement Level 5, Restructuring, Continuing |
3 |
School Improvement Level 5, Restructuring, Implementation |
20 |
Total |
368 |
Data as of 07/27/2008 |