Report of student performance, writing, grades 4, 6 and 8

              The North Carolina General Writing Assessment Grades 4, 7, 10
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) Grades 4, 7, 10 NCEXTEND2 EOG Grades 4 and 7
NCEXTEND2 OCS Grade 10
NCEXTEND1 Grades 4, 7, 10
North Carolina
Testing Program
Report
of
Student Performance
in
Writing
Published December 2007
Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Department of Public Instruction
Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing
2006-07
on
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
HOWARD N. LEE
Chairman :: Raleigh
WAYNE MCDEVITT
Vice Chair :: Asheville
BEVERLY PERDUE
Lieutenant Governor :: New Bern
RICHARD MOORE
State Treasurer :: Kittrell
KATHY A. TAFT
Greenville
KEVIN D. HOWELL
Raleigh
SHIRLEY E. HARRIS
Troy
EULADA P. WATT
Charlotte
ROBERT “TOM” SPEED
Boone
MELISSA E. BARTLETT
Raleigh
JOHN A. TATE III
Charlotte
PATRICIA N. WILLOUGHBY
Raleigh
NC DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
June St. Clair Atkinson, Ed.D., State Superintendent
301 N. Wilmington Street :: Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
In compliance with federal law, NC Public Schools administers all state-operated educational programs,
employment activities and admissions without discrimination because of race, religion, national or ethnic
origin, color, age, military service, disability, or gender, except where exemption is appropriate and
allowed by law.
Inquiries or complaints regarding discrimination issues should be directed to:
Robert Logan, Associate State Superintendent :: Office of Innovation and School Transformation
6301 Mail Service Center :: Raleigh, NC 27699-6301 :: Telephone 919-807-3200 :: Fax 919-807-4065
Visit us on the Web:: www.ncpublicschools.org
Report
of
Student
Performance
in
Writing
on
The North Carolina General Writing Assessment Grades 4, 7, 10
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) Grades 4, 7, 10
NCEXTEND2 EOG Grades 4 and 7
NCEXTEND2 OCS Grade 10
NCEXTEND1 Grades 4, 7, 10
2006-07
Published December 2007
Public Schools of North Carolina
State Board of Education
Department of Public Instruction
Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825
www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing
© 2007 All rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part,
without prior written permission from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Division of
Accountability Services, Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2825.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Acknowledgments
This report is the collaborative work of many individuals. The North Carolina
Testing Program is conducted by the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction (NCDPI), Division of Accountability Services. Mildred Bazemore,
Jim Kroening, and Charles Lanier in the North Carolina Test Development
Section, directed the design of the report.
Technical support services for the program are implemented in collaboration with
the Center for Urban Affairs and Community Services at North Carolina State
University under the Technical Outreach for Public Schools (TOPS) program.
Staff at TOPS conducted the required analyses and report production.
At TOPS we thank Erin Bohner, Sheila Brown, Betty Marsh, Amy Powell-
Moman, Anthony Wells, and Akia Beverly-Worsley for assistance in creating
tables and figures, and Karin Wolfe for verifying data accuracy, and coordinating
report editing and production.
We also thank the personnel in the state’s Regional Accountability Centers and
Local Education Agencies for their conscientious efforts in administering the tests
and verifying the data.
This publication and the information contained within must not be used for personal or financial gain. North
Carolina LEA school officials and teachers, parents, and students may download and duplicate this
publication for instructional and educational purposes only. Others may not duplicate this publication
without prior written permission from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI)
Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
i
North Carolina Testing Program
2006-07
Report of Student Performance in Writing
Grades 4, 7, and 10
Table of Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 1
Section I
2006-07 North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), State-Level Summary Statistics,
Grade 4................................................................................................................................................. 7
Grade 4 Sample Student Responses–North Carolina Writing Assessment (General) ........................ 39
Grade 4 Sample Student Responses–North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) ............ 55
2006-07 North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), Grade 4, Regional by
LEA Performance ............................................................................................................................... 71
Section II
2006-07 North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), State-Level Summary Statistics,
Grade 7............................................................................................................................................... 87
Grade 7 Sample Student Responses–North Carolina Writing Assessment (General) ...................... 119
Grade 7 Sample Student Responses–North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) ........... 135
2006-07 North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), Grade 7, Regional by
LEA Performance ............................................................................................................................. 153
Section III
2006-07 North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), State-Level Summary Statistics,
Grade 10......................................................................................................................................... ..169
Grade 10 Sample Student Responses–North Carolina Writing Assessment (General) .................... 201
Grade 10 Sample Student Responses–North Carolina Writing Assessment
(NCEXTEND2 OCS) ..................................................................................................................... ..217
2006-07 North Carolina Writing Assessment, Grade 10, Regional by LEA Performance............... 231
Section IV
Appendices....................................................................................................................................... 247
ii
Section IV (continued)
Appendix A: North Carolina Writing Assessment (General) - Grade Levels and Types
of Writing by Year ............................................................................................................................ 245
Appendix B: 1992-93 to 2006-07 Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III, North
Carolina Writing Assessment (General and Alternates), Grade 4 .................................................... 253
Appendix C: 1995-96 to 2006-07 Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III, North
Carolina Writing Assessment (General and Alternates), Grade 7 .................................................... 257
Appendix D: 1991-92 to 2006-07 Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III, North
Carolina Writing Assessment (General and Alternates), Grade 10 .................................................. 261
Appendix E: List of North Carolina Charter Schools, 2006-07..................................................... 265
Appendix F: 2006-07 North Carolina Writing Advisory Committee ............................................ 269
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
1
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) Testing Section, NCDPI
English/language arts, and North Carolina State University-Technical Outreach for Public Schools
(NCSU-TOPS) staff met in September of 2001 and began the process that would result in new writing
assessments and scoring procedures for grades 4, 7, and 10. Writing committees for each grade level
were established that included general education teachers, ESL teachers, exceptional children teachers,
curriculum supervisors, principals, and university faculty. The North Carolina Writing Assessment
Scoring Model was developed by NCDPI Testing Section and NCSU-TOPS staff, refined by the Writing
Assessment Advisory Committees, and approved by the State Board of Education (SBE) on January 9,
2003.
A pilot administration of the North Carolina Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7, and 10 was
administered in March 2003 to all eligible students. The students in grades 4 and 7 received 75 minutes
to respond to the pilot prompt; students in grade 10 received 100 minutes. The writing assessments, the
scoring model, and Achievement Level ranges were revised to reflect (1) changes in the
English/language arts curriculum emphasis and focus, and (2) the need to enhance the data analysis
processes associated with the writing assessments.
Changes to the North Carolina Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7, and 10 were initiated effective with
the 2002-03 school year to reflect the revisions to the English/language arts curriculum adopted by the
SBE (1999), the recommendations of the Writing Assessment Task Force (2001), and the
recommendations of the SBE Ad Hoc Writing Committee (2002).
In response to the Reauthorization of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the North
Carolina Testing Program added a system of assessments for students with disabilities effective with the
2000–01 school year. Initially, the system focused on a portfolio for students with significant cognitive
disabilities and was later expanded to include a checklist, the North Carolina Alternate Assessment
Academic Inventory (NCAAAI), for other students with disabilities who, due to the nature of their
disability, were not able to access the general assessment with the approved accommodations. For
students with disabilities, the NCAAAI was used as either an on-grade-level or off-grade-level
assessment.
In January 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) which
requires students identified as limited English proficient (LEP) to participate in the state assessment
program using grade-level assessments. Subsequently, the State Board of Education designated the
NCAAAI, administered on grade level, as the alternate assessment for students identified as LEP who
met eligibility criteria based on language proficiency and years in U.S. schools.
Effective with the 2005–06 school year, the state implemented several changes in the North Carolina
Testing Program as a result of changes in regulations and impending decisions by the United States
Department of Education (USED). Because the USED no longer permitted students to be assessed off-grade
level, the NCAAAI was discontinued. The North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards
(NCCLAS) was created to fulfill the requirements mandated by IDEA and NCLB. In 2006-07 the
NCAAP was also discontinued and the NCEXTEND1 assessment was created under federal NCLB
mandates.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
2
Introduction (continued)
In 2005-06, in response to guidance from the USED, the NCDPI created an additional assessment, the
NCEXTEND2. The NCEXTEND2 is designed to measure student performance for some students with
disabilities based on grade-level modified achievement standards. The NCEXTEND2 may be used as an
assessment for writing at grades 4, 7 and grade 10 Occupational Course of Study (OCS). Students are
permitted to use approved accommodations during the administration of the NCEXTEND2 Writing
Assessment.
NCCLAS Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7 and 10
The North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for writing is a grade-level academic
assessment in which teachers utilize a checklist to evaluate student performance on grade-level specific
writing standards. Student work samples are collected throughout the academic year and are evaluated
based on a scoring rubric during the final scoring assessment period completed during the final thirty
(30) calendar days of school. Final overall goal scores are recorded and are submitted in an online
format during the final thirty (30) calendar days of school. Student profiles are completed at the
beginning of the assessment period and during the final assessment period. Final goal scoring is
completed by two assessors.
This process (1) involves a representative and deliberate collection of student work/information, (2)
allows the assessor to make judgments about what a student knows and is able to do, and (3) measures
student performance based on specific objectives from the North Carolina Standard Course of Study
(NCSCS). The NCCLAS Writing Assessment is available to students with disabilities and NCSCS
students with limited English proficiency who meet specific eligibility requirements.
NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment at Grades 4 and 7
The NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment is based on a modified assessment format and measures student
performance on grade-level modified achievement standards. All students who participate in the
NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment at grades 4 and 7 are expected to receive instruction under the
NCSCS. Students with disabilities who do not have a significant cognitive disability may participate in
NCEXTEND2.
It is important to recognize that although the scoring rubrics and the features of writing assessed on the
NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment at grades 4 and 7 do not differ from the General Writing
Assessment, it is in the application of those rubrics when applied to student responses that results in a
grade-level modified achievement standard.
Students who participate in the NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment at Grades 4 and 7 receive the same
prompt and administration time as the students who participate in the General Writing Assessment at
Grades 4 and 7. All student responses are scored by two independent raters on two scoring components:
Content (focus, organization, support and elaboration, and style) and Conventions (sentence formation,
standard usage, and mechanics, including spelling).
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
3
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment at Grade 10 for Occupational Course of Study
The NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment at Grade 10 is a timed assessment given only to students
in grade 10 receiving instruction under the NCOCS. Students who take the NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing
Assessment receive a prompt specifically designed to assess the writing competency goals from
Occupational English I and Occupational English II of the NCOCS. All student responses are scored by
two independent raters on two scoring components: Content (focus, organization, and support and
elaboration) and Conventions (sentence formation, standard usage, and mechanics, including spelling).
While the scoring rubrics are the same as the Grade 10 General Writing Assessment with the exception
of removing the style component, it is in the application of those rubrics when applied to student
responses that results in a modified standard. The first operational administration of the NCEXTEND2
OCS Writing Assessment at Grade 10 occurred in March, 2007. Interim standards were approved by the
State Board of Education (SBE) on June 7, 2007.
NCEXTEND1 Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7, and 10
The NCEXTEND1 is a performance-based writing assessment designed to assess students with
significant cognitive disabilities. Students are assessed in writing at grades 4, 7, and 10. Writing tasks
for the NCEXTEND1 are grade-level, content-specific performance tasks based on the extensions of the
NCSCS. These tasks are not scored using the North Carolina Writing Assessment Scoring Model, but
are scored using the NCEXTEND1 Scoring Rubric (4-16). Students are assessed on designated tasks
during a testing window in the spring. Student performance on the assessment tasks is submitted online.
NCEXTEND1 is only available to students who meet all of the eligibility requirements as stipulated in
the Test Administrator’s Manual for NCEXTEND1.
Types of Writing Assessed, Scoring Procedures, Achievement Level Ranges
Table 1. Type of Writing Assessed by Grade Level for General Writing Assessment
Grade Level Type of Writing
4 Extended narrative response (personal or imaginative)
7 Extended argumentative response (problem/solution or evaluative)
10 Extended informational response (definition or cause/effect)
Table 2. Type of Writing Assessed by Grade Level for NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment
Grade Level Type of Writing
4 Extended narrative response (personal or imaginative)
7 Extended argumentative response (problem/solution or evaluative)
10 OCS Extended expressive response (work skills, life skills, or personal skills)
Appendix A displays a complete list of the types of writing by grade level and year.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
4
Scoring Procedure
Student responses were scored using the North Carolina Writing Assessment Scoring Model which
consists of the following:
• a content component with a 1-4 score scale, and
• a conventions component with a 0-2 score scale.
All student responses are scored by two independent readers.
The total writing score for each student is computed by combining the content and conventions scores in
the following manner:
Total Writing Assessment Score = sum of the (content component scores from the two independent
readers multiplied by 2) + the sum of the (conventions component scores from the two independent
readers multiplied by 1).
The Total Writing Assessment Score may be a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 20 for a given student.
Students received the following information from the writing assessments: (a) point totals for content,
(b) point totals for conventions, (c) total writing scores, (d) Achievement Level, and (e) their imaged
responses were returned. A review procedure was incorporated into the scoring process for those
students whose Total Writing Assessment Score fell within one point of the cut line at Achievement
Level III. This procedure precluded an LEA appeal mechanism, as conducted under the previous
focused holistic scoring system.
Writing Assessment Achievement Level Ranges
After carefully examining all data associated with the “Body of Work” and “Contrasting Groups”
standard-setting methods, pilot administration data, and the North Carolina Writing Assessment Scoring
Model, the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction (NCDPI) Accountability Services,
Instructional Services – English/language arts, and Exceptional Children’s Division staff recommended
the following Achievement Level ranges for approval by the SBE.
Table 3. SBE Adopted Achievement Level Ranges for the North Carolina
General Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7, and 10 (October, 2003)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Grades 4, 7, 10 4-7 8-11 12-16 17-20
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
5
Table 4. SBE Adopted Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCCLAS Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7 and 10 (May, 2007)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Grades 4, 7, and 10 4-6 7-9 10-13 14-16
Table 5. SBE Adopted Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment at Grades 4 and 7 (August, 2006)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Grades 4 and 7 4-7 8-13 14-17 18-20
Table 6. SBE Adopted Interim Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment at Grade 10 (June, 2007)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Grade 10 OCS 4-6 7-11 12-16 17-20
Table 7. SBE Adopted Interim Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCEXTEND1 Writing Assessment at Grades 4, 7, and 10 (June, 2007)
Level I Level II Level III Level IV
Grades 4, 7, and 10 4-6 7-10 11-14 15-16
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
9
The North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Grade 4
Results of the
North
Carolina
General
Writing
Assessment
at Grade 4
Observations
The prompt for the 2007 Grade 4 North Carolina General Writing Assessment
asked students to write an imaginative narrative response to the following prompt:
Imagine a friend gave you a funny-looking watch. When you put the watch on,
something very surprising happened. Write a story about what happened the time a
friend gave you a funny-looking watch.
Contracted readers scored 104,687 public school responses for grade 4 from the
2006-07 The North Carolina General Writing Assessment. The scores show that
52.7 percent of the fourth graders wrote well enough to score at or above Level III.
This represents an increase of 2.8 percent from the 49.9 percent who achieved this
level in 2005-06 assessment and a 14.1 percent increase from the pilot
administration in 2002-03. Less than 5.0 percent of the fourth graders in the 2006-
07 North Carolina General Writing Assessment received the highest scores (Level
IV) and 8.4 percent received the lowest scores (Level I). In 2006-07, less than one
percent (0.3) of the papers had problems which made them non-scorable. Non-scorable
papers receive Achievement Level I ratings and are included in the state
results as Level I scores.
The average weighted content score for fourth graders participating in the North
Carolina General Writing Assessment in 2006-07 was 8.6 on a scale of four to
twenty. The average conventions score was 2.7 on a scale of zero to four. The
average Total Writing Assessment Score was 11.4 of a possible 20.
The following observations were noted during the scoring process:
• The funny-looking watch provided an effective prompt to an imaginative
story. The most common topics were dinosaur encounters, time travel, and
invisibility. The students seemed to understand and respond well to this
prompt.
• Successful responses tended to establish a topic and provide support for that
topic; less successful responses introduced a series of loosely-connected
events and ideas, thus weakening the focus. For example, “Then . . . then . .
. then . . , ” “It was my turn . . . It was my turn again”.
• While responses often provided support, many unsuccessful responses
consisted of details presented in a list-like fashion. Often there were major
weaknesses in elaboration supporting the events in the story and
insufficiency of detail characterized by redundancy or repetitious
paraphrasing of the same point or language.
• Many responses left missing links that the reader was forced to supply. A
typical student response may have stated “I saw a T-Rex. I ran through the
jungle.” rather than stating “I saw a gigantic T-Rex who frightened me
because I was afraid that he would want to eat me. I ran through the jungle
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
10
Observations
(continued)
Performance
of Subgroups
at Grade 4
hoping I could find a place to hide.”
• Other papers related a series of loosely-connected events with a great deal
of action and descriptive detail, reminiscent of a video game or action
movie. The responses provided a great deal of descriptions, but lacked
elaboration of the action and events presented in the story.
• The most common sentence formation errors were run-on sentences.
• The most common usage errors were verb tense inconsistency, and the
failure to use a word according to its standard meaning (they’re/their/there,
were/where). Phrases or clauses used incorrectly were also apparent, but
most frequently appeared as a missing word in a sentence.
• Mechanics errors were predominantly misspellings of simple words.
Dialogue punctuation was often handled correctly by the students.
Gender
Approximately 59.7 percent of the female students scored at or above Level III
compared to 45.8 percent for male students.
Ethnicity
About 69.4 percent of Asian students scored at or above Level III compared to 61.4
percent of the White students, 53.4 percent of Multi-Racial students, 39.4 percent
of Black students, 39.4 percent of American Indian students, and 37.4 percent of
Hispanic students.
There were 104,687 fourth grade public school student responses scored by two
independent readers. The inter-rater reliability rates (agreement rates) of the
readers are shown below in Table 8. The 70.0 percent criterion rate for perfect
agreement based upon industry standards was exceeded and the resolutions
required were few.
Table 8. North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Fourth Grade Reader Agreement Statistics
Total Public
Perfect
Agreement
Adjacent
Agreement
Resolution
Required
School Papers Percent Percent Percent
Content 104,687 72.4 26.4 5.4
Conventions 104,687 72.9 26.0 5.4
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
11
Performance
of Subgroups
at Grade 4
(continued)
The following pages, and Appendix B, present data for the Grade 4 North Carolina
General Writing Assessments. Figure 1 indicates that a substantial change occurred
in the percentage of students scoring at or above Achievement Level III on the
general assessment between the pilot year and the current year (0.1% increase
between 2002-03 and 2003-04, 11.2% increase between 2003-04 and 2005-06, and
a 2.8% increase between 2005-06 and 2006-07. Table 15a, a table of Achievement
Levels by subgroup, demonstrates that females outperformed males. Also, Asian,
White, and Multi-Racial students performed at a higher level than the Black,
Hispanic, and American Indian subgroups. Table 17a, the frequency distribution,
shows that less than three percent of fourth graders reached Achievement Level IV,
while about 49.7 percent of the students received a III, about 38.9 percent received
a II, and 8.4 percent received Achievement Level I.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
12
The North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) - Grade 4
Results of the
North Carolina
Writing
Assessment
(NCEXTEND2)
at Grade 4
Observations
The prompt for the 2007 Grade 4 North Carolina Writing Assessment
(NCEXTEND2) asked students to write an imaginative narrative response to the
following prompt:
Imagine a friend gave you a funny-looking watch. When you put the watch on,
something very surprising happened. Write a story about what happened the time a
friend gave you a funny-looking watch.
Contracted readers scored 2,559 public school responses for grade 4 from the 2006-
07 North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2). The scores show that 8.1
percent of the fourth graders scored at or above Level III. This represents a 6.7
percent decrease from the 14.8 percent who achieved this level in 2005-06
assessment. Less than 5.0 percent of the fourth graders in the 2006-07 North
Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) received Level IV scores, and 51.5
percent received Level I scores. In 2006-07, 10.1 percent of the papers had
problems which made them non-scorable. Non-scorable papers receive
Achievement Level I ratings and are included in the state results as Level I scores.
The average weighted content score for fourth graders participating in the North
Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) in 2006-07 was 6.3 on a scale of
four to twenty. The average conventions score was 0.8 on a scale of zero to two.
The average Total Writing Score was 7.9 of a possible 20.
The following additional observations were noted during the scoring process:
• Most of the students were able to address the prompt in some manner, but
were unable to establish or maintain a focus on the topic. The majority of
the students related to the prompt, in that they had some familiarity with
what a watch was, though there was evidence of some confusion about the
meaning of “funny-looking.”
• Most of the papers at Level I took a literal approach to the prompt and
wrote about the friend who gave them the watch or wrote about
unconnected, random ideas about watches like setting the time, the color of
the watch, or fixing a broken watch.
• There were also many papers at the upper end of the score point range that
addressed the subject of the watch imaginatively, in that the watch became
a vehicle or a portal to teleport or transport by allowing them to travel in
time or to some distant place. In most cases, those papers were brief and
did not establish enough connection between and among ideas and events to
be considered a story.
• Sentence formation errors followed the same pattern as the general writing
assessment with the most common type of error being run-on sentences.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
13
NCEXTEND2
Observations
(continued)
Performance of
NCEXTEND2
Subgroups
at Grade 4
Fragment errors tended to take the form of dropped words which distorted
the meaning of sentences. Many students randomly placed periods and
question marks at the end of lines or in a vertical pattern throughout the
response, clearly demonstrating that they did not know proper end
punctuation.
• Incorrect verb agreement was the most common usage error encountered.
��� Mechanics errors, particularly misspellings of grade-level vocabulary words
were the most common conventions errors in this assessment. Spelling
errors fell into two categories: those that were phonetic and could be easily
read in context to surrounding words, and those that were non-phonetic
with a severity and density that impeded the readers’ understanding of
content.
Gender
Approximately 8.0 percent of the female students scored at or above Level III
compared to 8.2 percent for male students.
Ethnicity
About 14.3 percent of Asian students scored at or above Level III compared to
10.4 percent of the White students, 9.3 percent of Multi-Racial students, 9.6
percent of American Indian students, 6.3 percent of Black students, and less than or
equal to 5.0 percent of Hispanic students
There were 2,559 fourth grade public school student responses scored by two
independent readers. The inter-rater reliability rates (agreement rates) of the
readers are shown below in Table 9. The 70.0 percent criterion rate for perfect
agreement based upon industry standards was exceeded and the resolutions
required were few.
Table 9. North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2)
Fourth Grade Reader Agreement Statistics
Total Public
Perfect
Agreement
Adjacent
Agreement
Resolution
Required
School Papers Percent Percent Percent
Content 2,559 75.9 22.4 2.2
Conventions 2,559 75.0 21.4 2.2
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
14
Performance of
NCEXTEND2
Subgroups
at Grade 4
(continued)
The following pages, and Appendix B, present data for the Grade 4 North Carolina
Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2). Table 15c, a table of Achievement Levels by
subgroup, demonstrates that males outperformed females slightly. Also, Asian,
White, and American Indian students performed at a higher level than the Multi-
Racial, Hispanic, and Black subgroups. Table 17c, the frequency distribution,
shows that less than one percent of fourth graders reached Achievement Level IV,
7.3 percent of the students received a III, 40.3 percent received a II, and 51.5
percent received Achievement Level I.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
The vertical line indicates the NCAAAI was discontinued and replaced by NCCLAS, and NCCLAS and NCEXTEND2 were operationalized in 2005-06.
NCEXTEND1, a newly developed writing assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilies, replaces the NCAAP in 2006-07.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this figure.
15
Notes: 1The writing standard, scale, and scoring model changed effective with the 2002-03 school year.
The data from 2002-03 are reported from the pilot test administration.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Figure 1. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessments, 2002-03 to 2006-07
Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III
Grade 4
52.7
56.4
71.1
32.8
8.1
81.7
49.9
38.6 38.7
49.4
12.1
8.1
9.7
50.7
68.2
22.3
14.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07
Percent of Students
GENERAL
ASSESSMENT
NCAAAI
NCAAP
1
NCCLAS
NCEXTEND2
NCEXTEND1
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the North Carolina General Writing Assessment.
When summed, gender/ethnicity N counts may not match the state N counts because a gender/ethnicity category may not have been
coded on some student answer sheets.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Percent of Students
Figure 2. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), 2006-07,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 4, By Gender and Ethnicity
52.7%
31.8%
32.0%
32.2%
43.2%
54.3%
60.5%
62.8%
68.6%
75.7%
46.7%
46.1%
46.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
State
Hispanic Male
American Indian Male
Black Male
Hispanic Female
American Indian Female
Multi-Racial Male
Black Female
White Male
Multi-Racial Female
Asian Male
White Female
Asian Female
Percent of Students
*N=1,248
*N=28,670
*N=1,211
*N=1,943
*N=29,666
*N=14,220
*N=1,932
*N=760
*N=4,986
*N=14,216
*N=687
*N=5,148
State Percent
*N=104,687
16
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the NCCLAS Writing Assessment operationalized in 2005-06.
**Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater
than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
When summed, gender/ethnicity N counts may not match the state N counts because a gender/ethnicity category may not have been
coded on some student answer sheets.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Percent of Students
Figure 3. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2006-07,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 4, By Gender and Ethnicity
27.3%
40.6%
42.4%
66.7%
28.6%
71.0%
50.0%
**
23.6%
**
**
32.8%
35.7%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
State
American Indian Female
American Indian Male
Multi-Racial Female
Hispanic Male
White Female
Hispanic Female
Black Male
Asian Female
Asian Male
Black Female
Multi-Racial Male
White Male
Percent of Students
*N=31
*N=6
*N=10
*N=32
*N=14
*N=147
*N=11
*N=165
*N=451
*N=0
*N=0
*N=0
State Percent
*N=33
17
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment operationalized in 2005-06.
**Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater
than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
When summed, gender/ethnicity N counts may not match the state N counts because a gender/ethnicity category may not have been
coded on some student answer sheets.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Percent of Students
Figure 4. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ), 2006-07,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 4, By Gender and Ethnicity
16.7%
10.8%
7.5%
8.1%
<=5.0%
5.6%
13.3%
6.7%
11.1%
11.1%
10.2%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
State
Multi-Racial Female
Hispanic Female
Hispanic Male
Black Female
Black Male
American Indian Male
White Male
White Female
Asian Female
Multi-Racial Male
American Indian Female
Asian Male
Percent of Students
*N=12
*N=30
*N=63
*N=9
*N=342
*N=728
*N=53
*N=719
*N=306
*N=168
*N=106
*N=23
State Percent
*N=2,559
18
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the NCEXTEND1 Writing Assessment operationalized in 2006-07.
**Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater
than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
When summed, gender/ethnicity N counts may not match the state N counts because a gender/ethnicity category may not have been
coded on some student answer sheets.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Percent of Students
Figure 5. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2006-07,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 4, By Gender and Ethnicity
83.5%
>=95.0%
70.0%
78.4%
81.8%
83.5%
85.7%
81.8%
>=95.0%
78.9%
**
81.7%
82.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
State
Asian Female
Asian Male
White Female
Multi-Racial Male
American Indian Male
Black Male
White Male
Black Female
Hispanic Female
Hispanic Male
Multi-Racial Female
American Indian Female
Percent of Students
*N=5
*N=12
*N=42
*N=28
*N=85
*N=214
*N=207
*N=11
*N=19
*N=125
*N=10
*N=2
State Percent
*N=774
19
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades, 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Membership1
Number
Partici-pating
Percent
Partici-pating
All Students 109,281 104,687 100.0 11.4 52.7 3,784 3.5 26.1 810 0.7 108,471 99.3
Female 53,465 51,827 49.5 11.8 59.7 1,273 2.4 26.7 365 0.7 53,100 99.3
Male 55,799 52,860 50.5 10.9 45.8 2,495 4.5 25.8 444 0.8 55,355 99.2
American Indian 1,560 1,447 1.4 10.5 39.4 99 6.3 22.2 14 0.9 1,546 99.1
Asian 2,638 2,459 2.3 12.7 69.4 98 3.7 39.8 81 3.1 2,557 96.9
Black 29,911 28,436 27.2 10.5 39.4 1,341 4.5 23.6 134 0.4 29,777 99.6
Hispanic 11,073 10,134 9.7 10.4 37.4 656 5.9 23.5 283 2.6 10,790 97.4
Multi-Racial/Other 4,027 3,875 3.7 11.4 53.4 123 3.1 31.7 29 0.7 3,998 99.3
White 60,055 58,336 55.7 11.9 61.4 1,451 2.4 28.4 268 0.4 59,787 99.6
Free and Reduced Lunch 50,462 47,481 45.4 10.5 39.2 2,573 5.1 23.6 408 0.8 50,054 99.2
No Free and Reduced Lunch 58,819 57,206 54.6 12.1 63.9 1,211 2.1 31.5 402 0.7 58,417 99.3
Title I 58,669 56,608 54.1 10.9 45.4 2,060 3.5 25.4 1 0.0 58,668 100.0
Not Title I 50,612 48,079 45.9 11.9 61.2 1,724 3.4 26.9 809 1.6 49,803 98.4
Schoolwide Title I 55,578 53,578 51.2 10.9 45.9 1,999 3.6 25.7 1 0.0 55,577 100.0
Targeted Assistance 2,800 2,744 2.6 10.5 37.5 56 2.0 19.6 0 0.0 2,800 100.0
Migrant 802 768 0.7 9.6 28.5 34 4.2 23.5 0 0.0 802 100.0
Not migrant 108,479 103,919 99.3 11.4 52.9 3,750 3.5 26.1 810 0.7 107,669 99.3
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 7,105 6,255 6.0 9.8 26.9 565 8.0 24.4 285 4.0 6,820 96.0
Not Limited English Proficient 102,176 98,432 94.0 11.5 54.3 3,219 3.2 26.4 525 0.5 101,651 99.5
Students with Disabilities 16,732 13,251 12.7 9.3 24.0 3,372 20.2 26.0 109 0.7 16,623 99.3
Students without Disabilities 92,549 91,436 87.3 11.7 56.8 412 0.4 27.2 701 0.8 91,848 99.2
Students with IEPs 14,462 10,981 10.5 9.1 21.5 3,372 23.3 26.0 109 0.8 14,353 99.2
Students without IEPs 94,819 93,706 89.5 11.6 56.3 412 0.4 27.2 701 0.7 94,118 99.3
Not Exceptional 77,875 76,788 73.4 11.2 50.6 409 0.5 27.1 678 0.9 77,197 99.1
Academically Gifted 14,215 14,209 13.6 14.0 89.3 6 0.0 66.7 0 0.0 14,215 100.0
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 665 527 0.5 8.6 18.8 127 19.1 11.0 11 1.7 654 98.3
Hearing Impaired 170 123 0.1 9.5 29.3 47 27.6 10.6 0 0.0 170 100.0
Educable Mentally Disabled 1,505 469 0.4 6.8 <=5% 1,019 67.7 16.3 17 1.1 1,488 98.9
Deaf-Blind 3 3 0.0 * * 0 0.0 * 0 0.0 3 100.0
Visually Impaired 48 41 0.0 10.2 31.7 6 12.5 16.7 1 2.1 47 97.9
Other Health Impaired 2,610 2,125 2.0 9.0 20.2 467 17.9 15.8 18 0.7 2,592 99.3
Orthopedically Impaired 83 52 0.0 9.8 32.7 25 30.1 52.0 6 7.2 77 92.8
Traumatic Brain Injured 31 16 0.0 9.0 12.5 15 48.4 53.3 0 0.0 31 100.0
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 46 1 0.0 * * 44 95.7 50.0 1 2.2 45 97.8
Multihandicapped 147 3 0.0 * * 140 95.2 62.1 4 2.7 143 97.3
Speech-Language Impaired 2,209 2,152 2.1 10.3 36.6 33 1.5 15.2 24 1.1 2,185 98.9
Specific Learning Disabled 6,071 5,167 4.9 8.8 16.2 885 14.6 15.7 19 0.3 6,052 99.7
Trainable Mentally Disabled 220 2 0.0 * * 216 98.2 76.9 2 0.9 218 99.1
Autistic 654 300 0.3 9.9 39.3 348 53.2 50.6 6 0.9 648 99.1
Section 504 2,270 2,270 2.2 10.3 35.7 0 0.0 * 0 0.0 2,270 100.0
Notes: 1"Membership" is the total number of students on the 2006-07 Disag_Students data file who were present on the first day of March, 2007.
2"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the General Writing Assessment.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
20
Category
Not Tested
Number
Absent or
Other
Percent
Absent or
Other
Table 10. North Carolina Testing Program
Percent
Alternate
Assessments
Number
Alternate
Assessments
Percent
Proficient
Alternate
Assessments
North Carolina Writing Assessments, 2006-07
Statewide Number of Students Participating in the General Assessment, Taking Alternate Assessments, and Number Not Tested,
Grade 4
Percent
Proficient
General
Writing
Number
Tested2
(General
Writing)
Percent
Tested
(General
Writing)
Mean
General
Writing
Score
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Grade 4 Number
Tested Level I Level II Level III Level IV
1992-93 84,686 16,727 47,597 17,929 2,433
19.8 56.2 22.1 2.8
1993-94 84,982 13,956 41,610 24,432 4,781
16.4 49.0 28.7 5.6
1994-95 87,339 3,773 36,793 39,865 6,367
4.3 42.1 45.6 7.3
1995-96 88,441 4,894 37,996 39,318 6,233
5.5 43.0 44.5 7.0
1996-97 90,638 3,627 42,945 40,994 3,072
4.0 47.4 45.2 3.4
1997-98 94,386 3,307 42,243 44,979 3,857
3.5 44.8 47.7 4.1
1998-99 96,649 1,933 41,388 48,020 5,308
2.0 42.8 49.7 5.5
1999-00 99,038 1,783 40,175 52,390 4,690
1.8 40.6 52.9 4.7
2000-01 100,930 2,309 29,200 64,555 4,860
2.3 28.9 64.0 4.8
2001-02 101,554 2,155 51,827 44,530 3,039
2.1 51.0 43.8 3.0
2002-031 99,382 11,210 49,846 35,507 2,819
11.3 50.2 35.7 2.8
2003-04 102,121 9,841 52,765 37,732 1,783
9.6 51.7 36.9 1.7
2004-05 101,726 9,920 41,599 48,500 *
9.8 40.9 47.7 <=5%
2005-06 100,774 7,871 42,587 48,972 *
7.8 42.3 48.6 <=5%
2006-07 104,687 8,828 40,717 52,064 *
8.4 38.9 49.7 <=5%
are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
Grade 4
Table 11. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (General), 1992-93 to 2006-07,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
Notes: 1The writing standard, scale, and scoring model changed effective with the 2002-03 school year.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Achievement Levels
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that
21
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Grade 4 Number
Tested Level I Level II Level III Level IV
2005-06 457 231 124 99 *
50.5 27.1 21.7 <=5%
2006-07 451 176 127 140 *
39.0 28.2 31.0 <=5%
Grade 4 Number
Tested Level I Level II Level III Level IV
2005-06 1,949 820 840 248 *
42.1 43.1 12.7 <=5%
2006-07 2,559 1,319 1,032 188 *
51.5 40.3 7.3 <=5%
Grade 4 Number
Tested Level I Level II Level III Level IV
2006-07 774 119 * 150 482
15.4 <=5% 19.4 62.3
Notes: *Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than
or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
Number in levels may not add to total because level was not reported for some students.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Achievement Levels
Achievement Levels
Grade 4
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ), 2006-07,
Table 13. North Carolina Testing Program
Table 12. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2006-07,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
Grade 4
Grade 4
Achievement Levels
Table 14. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2006-07,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
22
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Number Percent
At or At or Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Above Above At At At At At At At At
Level III Level III Level I Level I Level II Level II Level III Level III Level IV Level IV
All Students 104,687 100.0 55,142 52.7 8,828 8.4 40,717 38.9 52,064 49.7 * <=5%
Female 51,827 49.5 30,939 59.7 2,947 5.7 17,941 34.6 29,048 56.0 * <=5%
Male 52,860 50.5 24,203 45.8 5,881 11.1 22,776 43.1 23,016 43.5 * <=5%
American Indian 1,447 1.4 570 39.4 158 10.9 719 49.7 555 38.4 * <=5%
Asian 2,459 2.3 1,706 69.4 * <=5% 661 26.9 1,522 61.9 184 7.5
Black 28,436 27.2 11,205 39.4 3,458 12.2 13,773 48.4 10,954 38.5 * <=5%
Hispanic 10,134 9.7 3,789 37.4 1,301 12.8 5,044 49.8 3,686 36.4 * <=5%
Multi-Racial/Other 3,875 3.7 2,069 53.4 300 7.7 1,506 38.9 1,956 50.5 * <=5%
White 58,336 55.7 35,803 61.4 3,519 6.0 19,014 32.6 33,391 57.2 * <=5%
Free and Reduced Lunch 47,481 45.4 18,599 39.2 5,923 12.5 22,959 48.4 18,155 38.2 * <=5%
No Free and Reduced Lunch 57,206 54.6 36,543 63.9 2,905 5.1 17,758 31.0 33,909 59.3 * <=5%
Title I 56,608 54.1 25,718 45.4 6,023 10.6 24,867 43.9 24,631 43.5 * <=5%
Not Title I 48,079 45.9 29,424 61.2 2,805 5.8 15,850 33.0 27,433 57.1 * <=5%
Schoolwide Title I 53,578 51.2 24,617 45.9 5,616 10.5 23,345 43.6 23,560 44.0 * <=5%
Targeted Assistance 2,744 2.6 1,028 37.5 338 12.3 1,378 50.2 1,000 36.4 * <=5%
Migrant 768 0.7 219 28.5 164 21.4 385 50.1 213 27.7 * <=5%
Not migrant 103,919 99.3 54,923 52.9 8,664 8.3 40,332 38.8 51,851 49.9 * <=5%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 6,255 6.0 1,685 26.9 1,057 16.9 3,513 56.2 1,654 26.4 * <=5%
Not Limited English Proficient 98,432 94.0 53,457 54.3 7,771 7.9 37,204 37.8 50,410 51.2 * <=5%
Students with Disabilities 13,251 12.7 3,174 24.0 3,129 23.6 6,948 52.4 3,073 23.2 * <=5%
Students without Disabilities 91,436 87.3 51,968 56.8 5,699 6.2 33,769 36.9 48,991 53.6 * <=5%
Students with IEPs 10,981 10.5 2,364 21.5 2,814 25.6 5,803 52.8 2,296 20.9 * <=5%
Students without IEPs 93,706 89.5 52,778 56.3 6,014 6.4 34,914 37.3 49,768 53.1 * <=5%
Not Exceptional 76,788 73.4 38,828 50.6 5,606 7.3 32,354 42.1 37,520 48.9 * <=5%
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 527 0.5 99 18.8 183 34.7 245 46.5 95 18.0 * <=5%
Hearing Impaired 123 0.1 36 29.3 26 21.1 61 49.6 35 28.5 * <=5%
Educable Mentally Disabled 469 0.4 * <=5% 269 57.4 180 38.4 * <=5% * <=5%
Deaf-Blind 3 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Visually Impaired 41 0.0 13 31.7 3 7.3 25 61.0 12 29.3 * <=5%
Other Health Impaired 2,125 2.0 430 20.2 576 27.1 1,119 52.7 418 19.7 * <=5%
Orthopedically Impaired 52 0.0 17 32.7 11 21.2 24 46.2 15 28.8 * <=5%
Traumatic Brain Injured 16 0.0 2 12.5 5 31.3 9 56.3 1 6.3 1 6.3
*Performance data are not reported when membership is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Category
Number
Tested1
(General)
Percent2
(General)
23
Table 15a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Grade 4
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, and Title I Students
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Number Percent
At or At or Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Above Above At At At At At At At At
Level III Level III Level I Level I Level II Level II Level III Level III Level IV Level IV
All Students with Disabilities (continued)
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 1 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Multihandicapped 3 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Speech-Language Impaired 2,152 2.1 788 36.6 332 15.4 1,032 48.0 759 35.3 * <=5%
Specific Learning Disabled 5,167 4.9 837 16.2 1,336 25.9 2,994 57.9 826 16.0 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Reading 4,466 4.3 726 16.3 1,190 26.6 2,550 57.1 704 15.8 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Mathematics 1,922 1.8 301 15.7 551 28.7 1,070 55.7 296 15.4 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Written Expression 3,371 3.2 554 16.4 886 26.3 1,931 57.3 547 16.2 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Other 184 0.2 32 17.4 52 28.3 100 54.3 32 17.4 * <=5%
Trainable Mentally Disabled 2 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Autistic 300 0.3 118 39.3 69 23.0 113 37.7 112 37.3 * <=5%
Section 504 2,270 2.2 810 35.7 315 13.9 1,145 50.4 777 34.2 * <=5%
Academically/Intellectually Gifted 14,209 13.6 12,684 89.3 * <=5% 1,424 10.0 11,050 77.8 1,634 11.5
AIG Reading 11,774 11.2 10,710 91.0 * <=5% 998 8.5 9,221 78.3 1,489 12.6
AIG Mathematics 11,140 10.6 9,975 89.5 * <=5% 1,092 9.8 8,632 77.5 1,343 12.1
Accommodations
Braille Edition 3 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Large Print 42 0.0 12 28.6 6 14.3 24 57.1 11 26.2 * <=5%
Assistive Technology 62 0.1 17 27.4 15 24.2 30 48.4 16 25.8 * <=5%
Braille Writer 2 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Cranmer Abacus 1 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Dictation to Scribe 1,476 1.4 317 21.5 272 18.4 887 60.1 317 21.5 * <=5%
Interpreter Signs Test 11 0.0 2 18.2 3 27.3 6 54.5 2 18.2 * *
Magnification Devices 10 0.0 5 50.0 1 10.0 4 40.0 5 50.0 * *
Student Marks in Test Book 2,036 1.9 346 17.0 614 30.2 1,076 52.8 342 16.8 * <=5%
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud 6,903 6.6 1,042 15.1 1,969 28.5 3,892 56.4 1,026 14.9 * <=5%
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor 111 0.1 52 46.8 21 18.9 38 34.2 42 37.8 10 9.0
Hospital/Home Testing 5 0.0 * * 1 20.0 4 80.0 * * * *
Multiple Test Sessions 3,738 3.6 739 19.8 976 26.1 2,023 54.1 716 19.2 * <=5%
Scheduled Extended Time 12,554 12.0 2,681 21.4 2,991 23.8 6,882 54.8 2,606 20.8 * <=5%
Testing in a Separate Room 11,143 10.6 2,145 19.2 2,817 25.3 6,181 55.5 2,096 18.8 * <=5%
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator 437 0.4 89 20.4 96 22.0 252 57.7 87 19.9 * <=5%
One Item per Page 28 0.0 4 14.3 7 25.0 17 60.7 4 14.3 * <=5%
Read Test Aloud to Self 319 0.3 53 16.6 78 24.5 188 58.9 52 16.3 * <=5%
*Performance data are not reported when membership is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
24
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina General Writing Assessment
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Number
Tested1
(General)
Percent2
(General)
Table 15a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, and Title I Students
Grade 4 (continued)
Category
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Number Percent
At or At or Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Above Above At At At At At At At At
Level III Level III Level I Level I Level II Level II Level III Level III Level IV Level IV
All Students 451 100.0 148 32.8 176 39.0 127 28.2 140 31.0 * <=5%
Female 200 44.3 63 31.5 80 40.0 57 28.5 62 31.0 * <=5%
Male 249 55.2 84 33.7 96 38.6 69 27.7 77 30.9 * <=5%
American Indian 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Asian 65 14.4 27 41.5 21 32.3 17 26.2 25 38.5 * <=5%
Black 24 5.3 10 41.7 7 29.2 7 29.2 10 41.7 * <=5%
Hispanic 312 69.2 81 26.0 141 45.2 90 28.8 78 25.0 * <=5%
Multi-Racial/Other 6 1.3 4 66.7 1 16.7 1 16.7 4 66.7 * *
White 42 9.3 25 59.5 6 14.3 11 26.2 22 52.4 3 7.1
Free and Reduced Lunch 325 72.1 94 28.9 143 44.0 88 27.1 91 28.0 * <=5%
No Free and Reduced Lunch 126 27.9 54 42.9 33 26.2 39 31.0 49 38.9 * <=5%
Title I 2 0.4 * * * * * * * * * *
Not Title I 449 99.6 148 33.0 174 38.8 127 28.3 140 31.2 * <=5%
Schoolwide Title I 2 0.4 * * * * * * * * * *
Targeted Assistance 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Migrant 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Not migrant 451 100.0 148 32.8 176 39.0 127 28.2 140 31.0 * <=5%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 324 71.8 98 30.2 132 40.7 94 29.0 93 28.7 * <=5%
Not Limited English Proficient 127 28.2 50 39.4 44 34.6 33 26.0 47 37.0 * <=5%
Students with Disabilities 48 10.6 37 77.1 4 8.3 7 14.6 35 72.9 * <=5%
Students without Disabilities 403 89.4 111 27.5 172 42.7 120 29.8 105 26.1 * <=5%
Students with IEPs 48 10.6 37 77.1 4 8.3 7 14.6 35 72.9 * <=5%
Students without IEPs 403 89.4 111 27.5 172 42.7 120 29.8 105 26.1 * <=5%
Not Exceptional 401 88.9 110 27.4 171 42.6 120 29.9 105 26.2 * <=5%
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 5 1.1 * * * * * * * * * *
Hearing Impaired 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Educable Mentally Disabled 4 0.9 * * * * * * * * * *
Deaf-Blind 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Visually Impaired 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Other Health Impaired 9 2.0 4 44.4 2 22.2 3 33.3 4 44.4 * *
Orthopedically Impaired 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Traumatic Brain Injured 1 0.2 * * * * * * * * * *
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Multihandicapped 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Speech-Language Impaired 2 0.4 * * * * * * * * * *
Specific Learning Disabled 21 4.7 18 85.7 2 9.5 * <=5% 17 81.0 * <=5%
Trainable Mentally Disabled 1 0.2 * * * * * * * * * *
Autistic 5 1.1 4 80.0 * * 1 20.0 4 80.0 * *
Section 504 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
*Performance data are not reported when membership is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the NCCLAS Writing Assessment.
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
25
Table 15b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2006-07,
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, and Title I Students
Grade 4
Category
Number
Tested1
(NCCLAS)
Percent2
(NCCLAS)
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Number Percent
At or At or Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Above Above At At At At At At At At
Level III Level III Level I Level I Level II Level II Level III Level III Level IV Level IV
All Students 2,559 100.0 208 8.1 1,319 51.5 1,032 40.3 188 7.3 * <=5%
Female 816 31.9 65 8.0 400 49.0 351 43.0 57 7.0 * <=5%
Male 1,743 68.1 143 8.2 919 52.7 681 39.1 131 7.5 * <=5%
American Indian 83 3.2 8 9.6 39 47.0 36 43.4 7 8.4 * <=5%
Asian 21 0.8 3 14.3 13 61.9 5 23.8 3 14.3 * <=5%
Black 1,025 40.1 65 6.3 551 53.8 409 39.9 62 6.0 * <=5%
Hispanic 274 10.7 * <=5% 144 52.6 117 42.7 * <=5% * <=5%
Multi-Racial/Other 86 3.4 8 9.3 36 41.9 42 48.8 8 9.3 * <=5%
White 1,070 41.8 111 10.4 536 50.1 423 39.5 96 9.0 * <=5%
Free and Reduced Lunch 1,807 70.6 141 7.8 923 51.1 743 41.1 129 7.1 * <=5%
No Free and Reduced Lunch 752 29.4 67 8.9 396 52.7 289 38.4 59 7.8 * <=5%
Title I 1,603 62.6 143 8.9 775 48.3 685 42.7 127 7.9 * <=5%
Not Title I 956 37.4 65 6.8 544 56.9 347 36.3 61 6.4 * <=5%
Schoolwide Title I 1,550 60.6 140 9.0 742 47.9 668 43.1 124 8.0 * <=5%
Targeted Assistance 48 1.9 3 6.3 29 60.4 16 33.3 3 6.3 * <=5%
Migrant 26 1.0 * <=5% 12 46.2 13 50.0 * <=5% * <=5%
Not migrant 2,533 99.0 207 8.2 1,307 51.6 1,019 40.2 187 7.4 * <=5%
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 207 8.1 13 6.3 101 48.8 93 44.9 13 6.3 * <=5%
Not Limited English Proficient 2,352 91.9 195 8.3 1,218 51.8 939 39.9 175 7.4 * <=5%
Students with Disabilities 2,551 99.7 208 8.2 1,315 51.5 1,028 40.3 188 7.4 * <=5%
Students without Disabilities 8 0.3 * * 4 50.0 4 50.0 * * * *
Students with IEPs 2,551 99.7 208 8.2 1,315 51.5 1,028 40.3 188 7.4 * <=5%
Students without IEPs 8 0.3 * * 4 50.0 4 50.0 * * * *
Not Exceptional 7 0.3 * * 4 57.1 3 42.9 * * * *
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 119 4.7 7 5.9 54 45.4 58 48.7 7 5.9 * <=5%
Hearing Impaired 40 1.6 * <=5% 29 72.5 11 27.5 * <=5% * <=5%
Educable Mentally Disabled 860 33.6 * <=5% 598 69.5 243 28.3 * <=5% * <=5%
Deaf-Blind 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Visually Impaired 5 0.2 * * 3 60.0 2 40.0 * * * *
Other Health Impaired 434 17.0 49 11.3 178 41.0 207 47.7 43 9.9 * <=5%
Orthopedically Impaired 13 0.5 1 7.7 8 61.5 4 30.8 1 7.7 * *
Traumatic Brain Injured 7 0.3 * * 5 71.4 2 28.6 * * * *
*Performance data are not reported when membership is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Grade 4
Category Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND2 )
Percent2
(NCEXTEND2 )
26
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ).
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Table 15c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2), 2006-07,
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, and Title I Students
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
27
Table 15c. North Carolina Testing Program
Number Percent
At or At or Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Above Above At At At At At At At At
Level III Level III Level I Level I Level II Level II Level III Level III Level IV Level IV
All Students with Disabilities (continued)
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Multihandicapped 11 0.4 1 9.1 9 81.8 1 9.1 1 9.1 * *
Speech-Language Impaired 31 1.2 5 16.1 10 32.3 16 51.6 4 12.9 * <=5%
Specific Learning Disabled 860 33.6 117 13.6 301 35.0 442 51.4 107 12.4 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Reading 848 33.1 108 12.7 312 36.8 428 50.5 100 11.8 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Mathematics 490 19.1 47 9.6 196 40.0 247 50.4 45 9.2 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Written Expression 773 30.2 97 12.5 292 37.8 384 49.7 89 11.5 * <=5%
Learning Disabled-Other 37 1.4 2 5.4 23 62.2 12 32.4 * <=5% * <=5%
Trainable Mentally Disabled 23 0.9 * <=5% 21 91.3 2 8.7 * <=5% * <=5%
Autistic 148 5.8 9 6.1 99 66.9 40 27.0 9 6.1 * <=5%
Section 504 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Academically/Intellectually Gifted 6 0.2 4 66.7 2 33.3 * * 4 66.7 * *
AIG Reading 2 0.1 * * * * * * * * * *
AIG Mathematics 5 0.2 3 60.0 2 40.0 * * 3 60.0 * *
Accommodations
Braille Edition 1 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Large Print 14 0.5 * * 11 78.6 3 21.4 * * * *
Assistive Technology 23 0.9 * <=5% 11 47.8 12 52.2 * <=5% * <=5%
Braille Writer 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Cranmer Abacus 1 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Dictation to Scribe 775 30.3 67 8.6 303 39.1 405 52.3 67 8.6 * <=5%
Interpreter Signs Test 25 1.0 * <=5% 21 84.0 4 16.0 * <=5% * <=5%
Magnification Devices 4 0.2 * * * * * * * * * *
Student Marks in Test Book 679 26.5 41 6.0 373 54.9 265 39.0 38 5.6 * <=5%
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud 1,892 73.9 147 7.8 1,005 53.1 740 39.1 134 7.1 * <=5%
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor 13 0.5 2 15.4 8 61.5 3 23.1 2 15.4 * *
Hospital/Home Testing 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Multiple Test Sessions 970 37.9 76 7.8 487 50.2 407 42.0 70 7.2 * <=5%
Scheduled Extended Time 2,186 85.4 182 8.3 1,117 51.1 887 40.6 164 7.5 * <=5%
Testing in a Separate Room 2,294 89.6 189 8.2 1,181 51.5 924 40.3 170 7.4 * <=5%
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator 4 0.2 * * * * * * * * * *
One Item per Page 10 0.4 * * 7 70.0 3 30.0 * * * *
Read Test Aloud to Self 78 3.0 * <=5% 56 71.8 19 24.4 * <=5% * <=5%
*Performance data are not reported when membership is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ).
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2), 2006-07,
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, and Title I Students
Grade 4 (continued)
Category
Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND2 )
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Percent2
(NCEXTEND2)
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Number Percent
At or At or Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Above Above At At At At At At At At
Level III Level III Level I Level I Level II Level II Level III Level III Level IV Level IV
All Students 774 100.0 632 81.7 119 15.4 * <=5% 150 19.4 482 62.3
Female 257 33.2 212 82.5 34 13.2 * <=5% 55 21.4 157 61.1
Male 503 65.0 416 82.7 76 15.1 * <=5% 93 18.5 323 64.2
American Indian 16 2.1 14 87.5 1 6.3 1 6.3 2 12.5 12 75.0
Asian 12 1.6 9 75.0 2 16.7 1 8.3 * * 9 75.0
Black 292 37.7 242 82.9 45 15.4 * <=5% 45 15.4 197 67.5
Hispanic 70 9.0 60 85.7 8 11.4 * <=5% 17 24.3 43 61.4
Multi-Racial/Other 31 4.0 27 87.1 4 12.9 * <=5% 9 29.0 18 58.1
White 339 43.8 276 81.4 50 14.7 * <=5% 75 22.1 201 59.3
Free and Reduced Lunch 441 57.0 372 84.4 57 12.9 * <=5% 91 20.6 281 63.7
No Free and Reduced Lunch 333 43.0 260 78.1 62 18.6 * <=5% 59 17.7 201 60.4
Title I 455 58.8 381 83.7 59 13.0 * <=5% 85 18.7 296 65.1
Not Title I 319 41.2 251 78.7 60 18.8 * <=5% 65 20.4 186 58.3
Schoolwide Title I 447 57.8 373 83.4 59 13.2 * <=5% 81 18.1 292 65.3
Targeted Assistance 8 1.0 * * * * * * 4 50.0 4 50.0
Migrant 8 1.0 7 87.5 1 12.5 * * 4 50.0 3 37.5
Not migrant 766 99.0 625 81.6 118 15.4 * <=5% 146 19.1 479 62.5
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 34 4.4 27 79.4 5 14.7 2 5.9 8 23.5 19 55.9
Not Limited English Proficient 740 95.6 605 81.8 114 15.4 * <=5% 142 19.2 463 62.6
Students with Disabilities 773 99.9 631 81.6 119 15.4 * <=5% 150 19.4 481 62.2
Students without Disabilities 1 0.1 * * * * * * * * * *
Students with IEPs 773 99.9 631 81.6 119 15.4 * <=5% 150 19.4 481 62.2
Students without IEPs 1 0.1 * * * * * * * * * *
Not Exceptional 1 0.1 * * * * * * * * * *
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 3 0.4 * * * * * * * * * *
Hearing Impaired 7 0.9 5 71.4 1 14.3 1 14.3 * * 5 71.4
Educable Mentally Disabled 155 20.0 143 92.3 9 5.8 * <=5% 42 27.1 101 65.2
Deaf-Blind 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Visually Impaired 1 0.1 * * * * * * * * * *
Other Health Impaired 24 3.1 21 87.5 3 12.5 * <=5% 4 16.7 17 70.8
Orthopedically Impaired 12 1.6 * * * * * * 6 50.0 6 50.0
Traumatic Brain Injured 7 0.9 * * * * * * 3 42.9 4 57.1
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 44 5.7 22 50.0 21 47.7 * <=5% * <=5% 20 45.5
Multihandicapped 129 16.7 86 66.7 35 27.1 8 6.2 25 19.4 61 47.3
Speech-Language Impaired 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
Specific Learning Disabled 4 0.5 * * * * * * * * * *
Trainable Mentally Disabled 192 24.8 165 85.9 21 10.9 * <=5% 41 21.4 124 64.6
Autistic 195 25.2 163 83.6 28 14.4 * <=5% 26 13.3 137 70.3
Section 504 0 0.0 * * * * * * * * * *
*Performance data are not reported when membership is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the NCEXTEND1 Writing Assessment.
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
28 Table 15d. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2006-07,
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, and Title I Students
Grade 4
Category Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND1 )
Percent2
(NCEXTEND1 )
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Average Average
Average Total Weighted Conventions Number Percent
Writing Score Content Score Score Non-scorable Non-scorable
All Students 104,687 100.0 11.4 8.6 2.7 362 0.3
Female 51,827 49.5 11.8 8.9 3.0 128 0.1
Male 52,860 50.5 10.9 8.4 2.5 234 0.2
American Indian 1,447 1.4 10.5 8.1 2.4 2 0.0
Asian 2,459 2.3 12.7 9.4 3.2 8 0.0
Black 28,436 27.2 10.5 8.0 2.4 109 0.1
Hispanic 10,134 9.7 10.4 8.1 2.3 79 0.1
Multi-Racial/Other 3,875 3.7 11.4 8.6 2.8 15 0.0
White 58,336 55.7 11.9 9.0 2.9 149 0.1
Free and Reduced Lunch 47,481 45.4 10.5 8.1 2.4 214 0.2
No Free and Reduced Lunch 57,206 54.6 12.1 9.1 3.0 148 0.1
Title I 56,608 54.1 10.9 8.3 2.5 213 0.2
Not Title I 48,079 45.9 11.9 9.0 2.9 149 0.1
Schoolwide Title I 53,578 51.2 10.9 8.3 2.6 202 0.2
Targeted Assistance 2,744 2.6 10.5 8.1 2.3 10 0.0
Migrant 768 0.7 9.6 7.6 2.0 5 0.0
Not migrant 103,919 99.3 11.4 8.6 2.7 357 0.3
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 6,255 6.0 9.8 7.7 2.0 70 0.1
Not Limited English Proficient 98,432 94.0 11.5 8.7 2.8 292 0.3
Students with Disabilities 13,251 12.7 9.3 7.6 1.6 112 0.1
Students without Disabilities 91,436 87.3 11.7 8.8 2.9 250 0.2
Students with IEPs 10,981 10.5 9.1 7.5 1.5 97 0.1
Students without IEPs 93,706 89.5 11.6 8.8 2.9 265 0.3
Not Exceptional 76,788 73.4 11.2 8.5 2.7 235 0.2
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 527 0.5 8.6 7.0 1.5 8 0.0
Hearing Impaired 123 0.1 9.5 7.4 1.8 3 0.0
Educable Mentally Disabled 469 0.4 6.8 5.9 0.7 17 0.0
Deaf-Blind 3 0.0 * * * * *
Visually Impaired 41 0.0 10.2 8.3 1.9 0 0.0
Other Health Impaired 2,125 2.0 9.0 7.4 1.5 18 0.0
Orthopedically Impaired 52 0.0 9.8 8.2 1.7 0 0.0
Traumatic Brain Injured 16 0.0 9.0 7.8 1.3 0 0.0
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Table 16a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07
Average Score,
Grade 4
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who partricipated in the North Carolina General Writing Assessment.
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Category Percent2
(General)
Number
Tested1
(General)
29
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Average Average
Average Total Weighted Conventions Number Percent
Writing Score Content Score Score Non-scorable Non-scorable
All Students with Disabilities (continued)
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 1 0.0 * * * * *
Multihandicapped 3 0.0 * * * * *
Speech-Language Impaired 2,152 2.1 10.3 8.0 2.3 5 0.0
Specific Learning Disabled 5,167 4.9 8.8 7.5 1.3 38 0.0
Learning Disabled-Reading 4,466 4.3 8.8 7.5 1.3 36 0.0
Learning Disabled-Mathematics 1,922 1.8 8.7 7.3 1.3 22 0.0
Learning Disabled-Written Expression 3,371 3.2 8.8 7.5 1.2 31 0.0
Learning Disabled-Other 184 0.2 8.9 7.2 1.6 2 0.0
Trainable Mentally Disabled 2 0.0 * * * * *
Autistic 300 0.3 9.9 7.8 1.8 8 0.0
Section 504 2,270 2.2 10.3 8.1 2.1 15 0.0
Academically/Intellectually Gifted 14,209 13.6 14.0 10.3 3.7 12 0.0
AIG Reading 11,774 11.2 14.2 10.4 3.7 10 0.0
AIG Mathematics 11,140 10.6 14.0 10.3 3.7 8 0.0
Accommodations
Braille Edition 3 0.0 * * * * *
Large Print 42 0.0 9.7 8.0 1.7 0 0.0
Assistive Technology 62 0.1 9.4 7.7 1.5 1 0.0
Braille Writer 2 0.0 10.5 7.0 3.5 0 0.0
Cramner Abacus 1 0.0 * * * * *
Dictation to Scribe 1,476 1.4 8.9 8.8 0.0 17 0.0
Interpreter Signs Test 11 0.0 8.6 7.5 1.2 0 0.0
Magnification Devices 10 0.0 10.1 8.0 2.1 0 0.0
Student Marks in Test Book 2,036 1.9 8.7 7.2 1.4 28 0.0
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud 6,903 6.6 8.7 7.3 1.3 87 0.1
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor 111 0.1 10.9 8.5 2.5 0 0.0
Hospital/Home Testing 5 0.0 8.2 7.6 0.6 0 0.0
Multiple Test Sessions 3,738 3.6 9.0 7.4 1.5 41 0.0
Scheduled Extended Time 12,554 12.0 9.2 7.5 1.6 119 0.1
Testing in a Separate Room 11,143 10.6 9.0 7.5 1.5 116 0.1
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator 437 0.4 9.3 7.4 1.7 8 0.0
One Item per Page 28 0.0 9.0 7.4 1.2 1 0.0
Read Test Aloud to Self 319 0.3 8.9 7.4 1.4 5 0.0
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment.
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Table 16a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07
Average Score,
Grade 4 (continued)
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Category Percent2
(General)
Number
Tested1
(General)
30
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Average Total
Writing Score
All Students 451 100.0 7.8
Female 200 44.3 7.7
Male 249 55.2 7.9
American Indian 0 0.0 *
Asian 65 14.4 8.4
Black 24 5.3 8.2
Hispanic 312 69.2 7.3
Multi-Racial/Other 6 1.3 10.3
White 42 9.3 9.8
Free and Reduced Lunch 325 72.1 7.5
No Free and Reduced Lunch 126 27.9 8.7
Title I 2 0.4 *
Not Title I 449 99.6 7.8
Schoolwide Title I 2 0.4 *
Targeted Assistance 0 0.0 *
Migrant 0 0.0 *
Not migrant 451 100.0 7.8
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 324 71.8 7.7
Not Limited English Proficient 127 28.2 8.2
Students with Disabilities 48 10.6 10.6
Students without Disabilities 403 89.4 7.5
Students with IEPs 48 10.6 10.6
Students without IEPs 403 89.4 7.5
Not Exceptional 401 88.9 7.5
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 5 1.1 12
Hearing Impaired 0 0.0 *
Educable Mentally Disabled 4 0.9 *
Deaf-Blind 0 0.0 *
Visually Impaired 0 0.0 *
Other Health Impaired 9 2.0 8.4
Orthopedically Impaired 0 0.0 *
Traumatic Brain Injured 1 0.2 *
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 0 0.0 *
Multihandicapped 0 0.0 *
Speech-Language Impaired 2 0.4 *
Specific Learning Disabled 21 4.7 11
Trainable Mentally Disabled 1 0.2 *
Autistic 5 1.1 11.2
Section 504 0 0.0 *
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Percent2
(NCCLAS)
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the NCCLAS Writing Assessment.
31
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Category
Number
Tested1
(NCCLAS)
Table 16b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2006-07
Average Score,
Grade 4
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Average Average
Average Total Weighted Conventions Number Percent
Writing Score Content Score Score Non-scorable Non-scorable
All Students 2,559 100.0 7.9 6.3 0.8 258 10.1
Female 816 31.9 8.1 6.4 0.9 82 3.2
Male 1,743 68.1 7.8 6.3 0.7 176 6.9
American Indian 83 3.2 8.3 6.8 0.9 7 0.3
Asian 21 0.8 8.1 6.0 1.0 3 0.1
Black 1,025 40.1 7.5 6.1 0.8 88 3.4
Hispanic 274 10.7 7.9 6.0 0.7 41 1.6
Multi-Racial/Other 86 3.4 8.7 6.7 0.8 11 0.4
White 1,070 41.8 8.2 6.6 0.8 108 4.2
Free and Reduced Lunch 1,807 70.6 7.9 6.4 0.7 169 6.6
No Free and Reduced Lunch 752 29.4 8.0 6.2 0.8 89 3.5
Title I 1,603 62.6 8.1 6.6 0.8 131 5.1
Not Title I 956 37.4 7.6 5.8 0.8 127 5.0
Schoolwide Title I 1,550 60.6 8.1 6.7 0.8 125 4.9
Targeted Assistance 48 1.9 7.4 6.0 0.6 5 0.2
Migrant 26 1.0 8.0 6.5 0.5 3 0.1
Not migrant 2,533 99.0 7.9 6.3 0.8 255 10.0
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 207 8.1 8.0 6.3 0.7 26 1.0
Not Limited English Proficient 2,352 91.9 7.9 6.3 0.8 232 9.1
Students with Disabilities 2,551 99.7 7.9 6.3 0.8 257 10.0
Students without Disabilities 8 0.3 7.6 6.0 0.6 1 0.0
Students with IEPs 2,551 99.7 7.9 6.3 0.8 257 10.0
Students without IEPs 8 0.3 7.6 6.0 0.6 1 0.0
Not Exceptional 7 0.3 7.2 5.4 0.7 1 0.0
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 119 4.7 7.9 6.3 1.0 8 0.3
Hearing Impaired 40 1.6 6.4 4.1 0.5 12 0.5
Educable Mentally Disabled 860 33.6 6.5 5.0 0.5 132 5.2
Deaf-Blind 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Visually Impaired 5 0.2 7.0 5.6 0.0 1 0.0
Other Health Impaired 434 17.0 8.6 7.2 0.9 22 0.9
Orthopedically Impaired 13 0.5 6.8 5.8 0.5 1 0.0
Traumatic Brain Injured 7 0.3 6.0 5.4 0.6 0 0.0
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Grade 4
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who partricipated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ).
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Category Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND2 )
Tested1
(NCEXTEND2 )
Table 16c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ), 2006-07
Average Score,
32
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Average Average
Average Total Weighted Conventions Number Percent
Writing Score Content Score Score Non-scorable Non-scorable
All Students with Disabilities (continued)
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Multihandicapped 11 0.4 6.1 4.2 0.3 3 0.1
Speech-Language Impaired 31 1.2 9.0 7.7 1.0 1 0.0
Specific Learning Disabled 860 33.6 9.0 7.7 1.0 36 1.4
Learning Disabled-Reading 848 33.1 8.9 7.5 1.0 37 1.4
Learning Disabled-Mathematics 490 19.1 8.5 7.1 0.9 30 1.2
Learning Disabled-Written Expression 773 30.2 8.9 7.5 1.0 36 1.4
Learning Disabled-Other 37 1.4 7.6 6.1 0.9 3 0.1
Trainable Mentally Disabled 23 0.9 5.7 1.7 0.1 16 0.6
Autistic 148 5.8 7.1 5.0 0.9 25 1.0
Section 504 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Academically/Intellectually Gifted 6 0.2 12.8 9.3 1.3 1 0.0
AIG Reading 2 0.1 16.0 12.0 4.0 0 0.0
AIG Mathematics 5 0.2 12.0 8.8 0.8 1 0.0
Accommodations
Braille Edition 1 0.0 12.0 12.0 0.0 0 0.0
Large Print 14 0.5 5.6 4.3 0.1 3 0.1
Assistive Technology 23 0.9 7.9 6.0 0.6 4 0.2
Braille Writer 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Cramner Abacus 1 0.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 0 0.0
Dictation to Scribe 775 30.3 8.2 7.7 0.0 51 2.0
Interpreter Signs Test 25 1.0 5.7 2.9 0.3 11 0.4
Magnification Devices 4 0.2 6.0 3.0 0.0 2 0.1
Student Marks in Test Book 679 26.5 7.7 5.9 0.7 91 3.6
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud 1,892 73.9 7.8 6.2 0.7 208 8.1
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor 13 0.5 8.1 5.7 1.2 2 0.1
Hospital/Home Testing 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0
Multiple Test Sessions 970 37.9 7.9 6.4 0.8 93 3.6
Scheduled Extended Time 2,186 85.4 8.0 6.4 0.8 220 8.6
Testing in a Separate Room 2,294 89.6 7.9 6.4 0.8 221 8.6
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator 4 0.2 7.5 7.5 0.0 0 0.0
One Item per Page 10 0.4 7.0 6.0 0.3 1 0.0
Read Test Aloud to Self 78 3.0 6.6 5.1 0.7 10 0.4
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table
Percent2
(NCEXTEND2 )
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ).
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Category Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND2 )
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ), 2006-07
Average Score,
Grade 4 (continued)
Table 16c. North Carolina Testing Program
33
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Average Total
Writing Score
All Students 774 100.0 13.2
Female 257 33.2 13.3
Male 503 65.0 13.3
American Indian 16 2.1 14.3
Asian 12 1.6 13.3
Black 292 37.7 13.4
Hispanic 70 9.0 13.5
Multi-Racial/Other 31 4.0 13.3
White 339 43.8 13.1
Free and Reduced Lunch 441 57.0 13.5
No Free and Reduced Lunch 333 43.0 12.8
Title I 455 58.8 13.5
Not Title I 319 41.2 12.8
Schoolwide Title I 447 57.8 13.5
Targeted Assistance 8 1.0 14.0
Migrant 8 1.0 12.5
Not migrant 766 99.0 13.2
Limited English Proficient (LEP) 34 4.4 12.9
Not Limited English Proficient 740 95.6 13.2
Students with Disabilities 773 99.9 13.2
Students without Disabilities 1 0.1 *
Students with IEPs 773 99.9 13.2
Students without IEPs 1 0.1 *
Not Exceptional 1 0.1 *
Behaviorally-Emotionally Disabled 3 0.4 *
Hearing Impaired 7 0.9 13.1
Educable Mentally Disabled 155 20.0 14.2
Deaf-Blind 0 0.0 *
Visually Impaired 1 0.1 *
Other Health Impaired 24 3.1 13.8
Orthopedically Impaired 12 1.6 14
Traumatic Brain Injured 7 0.9 14.3
Severely/Profoundly Mentally Disabled 44 5.7 10
Multihandicapped 129 16.7 11.5
Speech-Language Impaired 0 0.0 *
Specific Learning Disabled 4 0.5 *
Trainable Mentally Disabled 192 24.8 13.6
Autistic 195 25.2 13.6
Section 504 0 0.0 *
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "All Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Table 16d. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2006-07
Average Score,
Grade 4
34
2"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Category
Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND1)
Percent2
(NCEXTEND1)
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the NCEXTEND1 Writing Assessment.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
104,687 HIGH SCORE 20
LOW SCORE 4
TOTAL
104,325 PERCENTILES SCORE
90 16
MEAN 11.4 75 13
50 (median) 12
STANDARD 25 10
DEVIATION 3.0 10 8
VARIANCE 8.8
ACH WRITING CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
LEVEL SCORE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT
20 894 104,687 0.9 100.0
19 6 103,793 0.0 99.1
18 2,029 103,787 1.9 99.1
17 149 101,758 0.1 97.2
16 9,074 101,609 8.7 97.1
15 1,356 92,535 1.3 88.4
14 11,172 91,179 10.7 87.1
13 4,560 80,007 4.4 76.4
12 25,902 75,447 24.7 72.1
11 2,088 49,545 2.0 47.3
10 26,456 47,457 25.3 45.3
9 6,139 21,001 5.9 20.1
8 6,034 14,862 5.8 14.2
7 2,344 8,828 2.2 8.4
6 2,715 6,484 2.6 6.2
5 962 3,769 0.9 3.6
4 2,445 2,807 2.3 2.7
NS 362 362 0.3 0.3
Notes: Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS WITH
VALID SCORES
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS TESTED
IV
III
Table 17a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 4
II
I
35
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
NUMBER OF HIGH SCORE 16
STUDENTS TESTED 451
LOW SCORE 4
MEAN 7.8 TOTAL
PERCENTILES SCORE
STANDARD 90 12
DEVIATION 3.0 75 10
50 (median) 8
25 5
VARIANCE 8.9 10 4
ACH WRITING CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
LEVEL SCORE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT
16 2 451 0.4 100.0
15 3 449 0.7 99.6
14 3 446 0.7 98.9
13 2 443 0.4 98.2
12 66 441 14.6 97.8
11 32 375 7.1 83.1
10 40 343 8.9 76.1
9 11 303 2.4 67.2
8 93 292 20.6 64.7
7 23 199 5.1 44.1
6 54 176 12.0 39.0
5 15 122 3.3 27.1
4 107 107 23.7 23.7
Carolina Writing Assessment.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
II
I
36
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
Notes: The range used for the NCCLAS Writing Assessment is different than the range used for the North
IV
III
Table 17b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2006-07,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 4
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
NUMBER OF HIGH SCORE 20
STUDENTS TESTED 2,559
LOW SCORE 4
TOTAL
2,301 PERCENTILES SCORE
90 12
MEAN 7.9 75 10
50 (median) 8
STANDARD 25 4
DEVIATION 3.5 10 4
VARIANCE 12.5
ACH WRITING CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
LEVEL SCORE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT
20 10 2,559 0.4 100.0
19 1 2,549 0.0 99.6
18 9 2,548 0.4 99.6
16 70 2,539 2.7 99.2
15 17 2,469 0.7 96.5
14 101 2,452 3.9 95.8
13 1 2,351 0.0 91.9
12 187 2,350 7.3 91.8
11 90 2,163 3.5 84.5
10 289 2,073 11.3 81.0
9 112 1,784 4.4 69.7
8 353 1,672 13.8 65.3
7 93 1,319 3.6 51.5
6 206 1,226 8.1 47.9
5 118 1,020 4.6 39.9
4 644 902 25.2 35.2
NS 258 258 10.1 10.1
Notes: Students with level scores reported but no total score reported are not included in this table.
The range used for the NCEXTEND2 Writing Assessment is different than the range used for the
North Carolina Writing Assessment.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS WITH
VALID SCORES
IV
III
Table 17c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 ), 2006-07,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 4
I
II
37
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
NUMBER OF HIGH SCORE 16
STUDENTS TESTED 774
LOW SCORE 4
MEAN 13.2 TOTAL
PERCENTILES SCORE
STANDARD 90 16
DEVIATION 4.3 75 16
50 (median) 16
25 12
VARIANCE 18.9 10 4
ACH WRITING CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE
LEVEL SCORE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY PERCENT PERCENT
16 482 774 62.3 100.0
15 0 292 0.0 37.7
14 16 292 2.1 37.7
13 0 276 0.0 35.7
12 134 276 17.3 35.7
11 0 142 0.0 18.3
10 6 142 0.8 18.3
9 0 136 0.0 17.6
8 17 136 2.2 17.6
7 0 119 0.0 15.4
6 0 119 0.0 15.4
5 0 119 0.0 15.4
4 119 119 15.4 15.4
Notes: Students with level scores reported but no total score reported are not included in this table.
The range used for the NCEXTEND1 Writing Assessment is different than the range used for the
North Carolina Writing Assessment.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
Table 17d. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2006-07,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 4
I
III
IV
II
38
39
2006-07
North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Grade 4
Copies of Grade 4
Sample Student Responses
The North Carolina Writing Assessment Scoring Model is comprised of a content component
with a 1-4 score range and a conventions component with a 0-2 score range. To report a total
writing score for each student, the score is computed by combining the content and conventions
scores using the following model:
Total Writing Assessment Score = sum of the (content component scores from two independent
readers multiplied by 2) + the sum of the (conventions component scores from two independent
readers multiplied by 1).
The following pages provide copies of sample student responses from the North Carolina
Writing Assessment at grade 4. The total content score, total conventions score, total writing
score, Achievement Level, and annotated explanations of the scores are provided for each
response.
41
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
42
Grade 4 – North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #1
Rubric Content Score: 1 Rubric Convention Score: 0
Total Content Score: 4 Total Writing Score: 4
Total Conventions Score: 0 Achievement Level: I
Content Annotation:
This response has a topic (the student’s friend makes a new watch that stops things from
moving), but does not establish or maintain a focus. Details are sparse and elaboration fails to
support the topic (I took my scoter with me…me J____ started playing video game until it was
8:00). Any precise or purposeful use of vocabulary is lacking. The response does not
demonstrate sentence fluency.
Conventions Annotation:
This response demonstrates a lack of control of grammatical conventions due to the many errors
in a small sample of writing, which impede the reader’s understanding. Errors include run-on
sentences (MoM can I go to J___’s house yes but come back at 8:00…left out the door when go
to his house I Knocked on the his door), fragments (Whenver I needed it), missing pronouns
(When got to his house), and misspelling of common words (said).
43
44
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
45
Grade 4-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #2
Rubric Content Score: 2 Rubric Convention Score: 1
Total Content Score: 8 Total Writing Score: 10
Total Conventions Score: 2 Achievement Level: II
Content Annotation:
Although this response establishes a focus regarding finding a diamond and determining
its worth, the logical progression of ideas and events is minimally complete (there was a
huge dimond in it and I asked my friend if that was soppost to be in there and she said no
she had never seen that befor. After that we went back to the store). The elaboration in
the response has major weaknesses relating to and supporting the topic (their could be a
dimond or a rubie in it…We did’ent belive what we saw so we had to prove owr self
rong!). The student provides details which are general or undeveloped (there was a huge
dimond…we took it to a lady and we asked her if it was reall…she got out a myshen and
she taped it to the dimond and she said yes…we told our parents the whole story and they
said wow to!). The undeveloped details leave questions for the reader (why is the
diamond in the watch; why hadn’t the friend seen it before; is the diamond a part of the
watch or a separate element?). The use of precise and purposeful vocabulary is minimal
and transitions are repetitive (After that We went back to the store…we told her the hole
story. After that she got out a myshen…After that we took the dimond back home…After
we told our parents the whole story). Sentence fluency is obstructed by frequent use of
conjoined clauses (I opend it up and there was a huge dimond in it and I asked my friend
if that was soppost to be in there and she said no she had never seen that befor��We
Whent into one of them and we took it to a lady and we asked her if it was reall and she
asked us were we got it).
Conventions Annotation:
This response exhibits minimal control of grammatical conventions. This student
demonstrates reasonable control of sentence formations (I opend it up and there was a
huge dimond in it and I asked my friend if that was soppost to be in there and she said no
she had never seen that before), however several excerpts demonstrate a lack of control
in mechanics. There is a capitalization error that occurs frequently (went back home and
got the dimond And brought it…whole story And they said). The student frequently
misspells simple words (could’t/couldn’t, opend/opened, befor/before, whent/went).
Usage errors include the failure to use a word according to its standard meaning
(there/their, whole/hole, where/wear).
46
47
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
48
Grade 4-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #3
Rubric Content Score: 2 Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Content Score: 8 Total Writing Score: 12
Total Conventions Score: 4 Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
Although this response establishes a topic, the writer exhibits major lapses in focus on the
subject of the paper. The organizational structure establishes little relationship between
and among ideas or events. The random progression of ideas and events is minimally
complete (we figured out that it had a built-in radio, so when it was halftime we turned it
on and danced. After the game because we we’re droped of we couldn’t go anywhere.
Luckely we had the watch. We tried picking up people on the radio, no good. Finally we
figured out that the watch also had a built-in cellphone. We first called a person to pick
us up and second ordered some takeout Chinesse. That night we went for a stroll down
Maine Street . . . . time froze but we could still move . . . . We froze time and put her out of
the room so she couldn’t teach. When we got home we payed for some dinner and went to
bed. The next day was our vaction so went to the beach . . . . We made some prank calls .
. . We went to an island). Transitions are abrupt. Elaboration in this response has major
weaknesses in relatedness and support of the topic (We went to an island and someone
said to me, “What a stylish watch that is”. And I said, “Thank you for the compliment
sir.” We decided that the beach was so cool that we moved there. So I fineshied college
at the beach and that’s where I am today). The paper consists of some specific details
(time froze but we could still move. It was amazing! If the dog was jumping it froze in
mid-air. Then we unfroze time and everything went back to normal). This student
demonstrates reasonable use of sentence fluency, showing a variety of sentence styles.
Conventions Annotaton:
This response exhibits reasonable control of grammatical conventions appropriate to the
writing task. The errors that are present do not impede the reader’s understanding.
49
50
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
51
Grade 4-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #4
Rubric Content Score: 3 Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Content Score: 12 Total Writing Score: 16
Total Conventions Score: 4 Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
The topic of this response is clear and focused (exploring Candyland). The organizational
structure establishes relationships between ideas and events, and includes effective
transitions between paragraphs, building narrative progression (As I walked down the
sidewalk . . . . As I looked around there was candy every where . . . . Full of exhastion I
slowly tried to eat more candy). Specific details engage the reader (I was zaped straight in
the odd looking thing. With an aking back I slowly got up . . . . jumped in a large pool of
taffy! I have to admit it was sticky but it sure was yummy to my tummy!). The student’s
purposeful vocabulary (Caustionshly I put the watch on . . . . Without hesitation I dove in)
exhibits reasonable control, although there are minor lapses in phrasing (layed down on
the candy smelling gras and drifted to sleep with good dreams). Sentence fluency is
reasonable throughout the response.
Conventions Annotations:
The student presents overall reasonable control of grammatical conventions although there
are errors, mostly misspellings (whene/when, emty/empty) in this longer response.
52
53
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
54
Grade 4-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #5
Rubric Content Score: 4 Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Content Score: 16 Total Writing Score: 20
Total Conventions Score: 4 Achievement Level: IV
Content Annotation:
The focus of this paper is clear (traveling into the distant past and distant future) and is
maintained throughout the response. The organizational structure establishes relationships
between and among events (a bright beam of light spread across the land . . . . Streams of
hot lava spued in the sky . . . One was coming toward me! I screamed then another white
light spread. I found myself in the futer . . . . a metior fell from the sky but just in time, the
light came) and demonstrates a progression that is unified and complete. Elaboration and
specific developed details support the topic (a round, red sun held high across the clouds
makeng the water gleam with beautey and grace . . . . Then I heard a rumble. My peaceful
cliff was really an active Volcano . . . . Flying cars grunted through the sky and teenagers
were walking out of stores with strange clothes of neon colors on. Tall, white buildings
hung below a green sky.) The student demonstrates skillful use of precise and purposeful
vocabulary (There, nestled on a piece of soft, black velvet was a 7 carrot gold watch. The
top was like polished crystal and the watch made it seem as if you were a princesse) and
of sentence fluency (A tarodactol shoot up threw the sky and flew back down like a rocket.
I took a breath of the salty air and sighed).
Conventions Annotation:
This paper exhibits reasonable control of sentence formation, word usage, and mechanics.
The errors that are present are largely minor misspellings (peice/piece, princesse/princess,
gorgeuse/gorgeous, spued/spewed, futer/future, sparkely/sparkly, ruffled/ruffeld/ruffled,
metior/meteor, makeing/making, beautey/beauty, erged/urged, giggeled/giggled) and
failure to use a word according to its standard meaning (threw/through) which do not
impede the reader’s understanding.
55
2006-07
North Carolina Writing Assessment
Grade 4 – NCEXTEND2
Copies of Grade 4
Sample Student Responses
The North Carolina Writing Assessment Scoring Model is comprised of a content component
with a 1-4 score range and a conventions component with a 0-2 score range. To report a total
writing score for each student, the score is computed by combining the content and conventions
scores using the following model:
Total Writing Assessment Score = sum of the (content component scores from two independent
readers multiplied by 2) + the sum of the (conventions component scores from two independent
readers multiplied by 1).
The following pages provide copies of sample student responses from the North Carolina
Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) at grade 4. The total content score, total conventions score,
total writing score, Achievement Level, and annotated explanations of the scores are provided
for each response.
57
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
58
Grade 4-North Carolina Writing Assessment ( NCEXTEND2) - Sample Student Response #1
Rubric Content Score: 1 Rubric Convention Score: 0
Total Content Score: 4 Total Writing Score: 4
Total Conventions Score: 0 Achievement Level: I
Content Annotation:
Although this response establishes a topic (getting a watch from a friend, getting a milkshake
and going to a dog show) it provides only a sparse series of events with little attempt at
elaboration. Ideas and events are presented in a random fashion (One day at a park my frind was
playing a game….one of them gave me a watch….It was funny suprise….my frind n___ she is my
best frind.). Details are sparse (We got tird so we got a milkshake….i got choclet…she got
villnai.).
Conventions Annotation:
This response demonstrates a lack of control of sentence formation, as many sentences are run-ons
(One day at a park my frind was playing a game one of them gave me a watch….Then we
went to the dog show my dog was there he won the contest.). There are some misspellings of
common words (frind/friend, suprise/surprise, tird/tired, togther/together). Errors are dense in a
brief paper.
59
60
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
61
Grade 4-North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) - Sample Student Response #2
Rubric Content Score: 2 Rubric Convention Score: 1
Total Content Score: 8 Total Writing Score: 10
Total Conventions Score: 2 Achievement Level: II
Content Annotation:
Although this response establishes a focus (getting a watch from a friend, putting it on), the
organizational structure establishes little relationship between ideas and events and there are
major lapses in the logical progression of events (I shorted you can come over to my
house….He shorted OK….Before long, I took the watch home…. I put the watch on…. It went
into my skin.), and little support or elaboration is offered (A moment later, my friend was at
the door….He munblend it took you to 1900’s….I shorted cool.). Detail is general and
undeveloped (The watch was red, blue, black and green. So the numbers was black. They was
chian numbers.).
Conventions Annotation:
This response exhibits minimal control of grammatical conventions. Although sentence
formation is mostly correct, there are some run-on sentences. There are usage errors present
(to/who, gave/giving, think/thank, was/were) and misspelling of common words
(shorted/shouted, munblend/mumbled) in a relatively small sample of writing.
62
63
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
64
Grade 4-North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) – Sample Student Response #3
Rubric Content Score: 2 Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Content Score: 8 Total Writing Score: 12
Total Conventions Score: 4 Achievement Level: II
Content Annotation:
This response establishes a focus (getting a watch from a friend and keeping the watch),
however the organizational structure establishes little relationship between ideas and events.
Progression of events is logical, but each event is unrelated and unconnected to the next event
(Then I opened it a birthday cake came out of it….Then I told my mom and dad once
more…But they did not tell me give it back…. So they bought me another watch and I threw
the other one away). This response also consists of undeveloped details presented in a list-like
fashion (When I opened that I seen some balloons and party hats….So I told my mama
and daddy again and again….But they say stop worrying….So I stop worrying….I went
outside until they came outside.).
Conventions Annotations:
This response exhibits reasonable control for grammatical conventions. The response
demonstrates control of sentence formation and mechanics, but there are a couple of usage
errors (seen/saw, come/came).
65
66
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
67
Grade 4-North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2) - Sample Student Response #4
Rubric Content Score: 3 Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Content Score: 12 Total Writing Score: 16
Total Conventions Score: 4 Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
The topic in this response is generally clear (getting the watch off) and remains consistently
focused throughout. The organizational structure establishes a clear progression of related ideas
and events. Support and elaboration consists of some specific details and development that
support the topic of how to get the watch off (“I put the watch on my arm….Something surprising
happenend I was so anxious….I tried to take it off….But it would not come off….I tried to get it
off….But it did not work…”I said T___” something is wrong with it “he said I don’t know how to
get it off…. I tried pulling it off my arm….I said to myself “how can I get this funny-watch off.”….I
said I will try putting it on some water and try to slide it off But that did not work….I no I will try
to step on it.).
Conventions Annotations:
This response demonstrates overall reasonable control of grammatical conventions with a few
errors in sentence formation, usage, and mechanics (no/know, happenend/happened, tryed/tried).
68
69
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
70
Grade 4 –North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2)-Sample Student Response #5
Rubric Content Score: 4 Rubric Convention Score: 1
Total Content Score: 16 Total Writing Score: 18
Total Conventions Score: 2 Achievement Level: IV
Content Annotation:
The focus of this paper is clearly established (being teleported to the ice age and encountering a
saber-tooth tiger) and is maintained throughout. The organizational structure establishes connected
relationships between ideas and events, consists of a logical progression or series of ideas, and is
unified and complete. The writer supports the topic with related elaboration and provides many
specific, developed details (As I wholed [whirled] away slolle [slowly] the capertoth chast me….I
looked for a huge rock I was save for the capertoth….Later on I got down from the huge rock the
capertoth spoit [spotted] me….I was runing from the capertoth agin….The capertoth chast me back
in the kafe [cave] ….I was about to hit the funny looking watch it was goon [gone] of my rest
[wrist]....I lost the watch.).
Conventions Annotations:
The response exhibits minimal control of grammatical conventions in a relatively long paper.
Although this response has many sentences formed correctly, there are a number of run-ons. There
are quite a few spelling errors of common words (kafe/cave, ma/me, nobers/numbers, frist/first,
hans/hands, throuy/throw, awaye/away, scered/scared).
71
2006-07
North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Grade 4
Regional by LEA Performance
Tables 20a through 20l provide the number of students participating and the percent of students
at or above Achievement Level III for each of the LEAs by region (former six Technical
Assistance Centers configurations). Performance by ethnicity, gender, Title I, and migrant
students is also provided for each LEA.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
State Percent† 2007 LEA Performance
* Metrolina**
...
94 Magellan**
...
91 Lincoln Charter**
...
88 Union Academy**
87 Quest Academy**
86 Greensboro Academy**
...
80 Carolina International**, Summit Charter**
79 Surry
78 Mountain Community**, Sterling Montessori**
77 Franklin Academy**, The Learning Center**
...
75 Chapel Hill-Carrboro City, Success Institute**
...
70 Haywood
2001 State 69 Children's Community**, Queen's Grant**, Transylvania, Woods Charter**
...
67 Phoenix Academy**
...
64 Elkin City, Gates
63 Millennium**, Polk
62 Cleveland, Wake, Watauga
61 Cape Fear Center**, Hyde
60 Catawba, Crossnore Academy**, F Delany New School**
59 Buncombe, Davie, Iredell-Statesville
2000 State 58 Henderson, Lincoln, Mooresville City
57 Avery, Camden, Piedmont Community**
56 American Renaissance**, Bethel Hill**, Caldwell, Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Cumberland, Davidson
Haliwa-Saponi Tribal**, Onslow, Two Rivers Community School**, Winston-Salem/Forsyth
1999 State 55 Alexander, Currituck, Gaston, Madison, River Mill Academy**, Tyrrell
54 Anson, Arapahoe Charter**, Asheville City, Burke, Guilford, Harnett, Johnston, Pender, Rutherford, Union,
Wayne, Yancey
1995, 2007 State 53 Casa Esperanza**, Caswell, Clover Garden**, Hickory City, Orange, Stokes
1996, 1998 State 52 Carteret, Forsyth Academies**, Moore, Perquimans, Stanly
51 Alamance-Burlington, Beaufort, Dare
2006 State 50 Brunswick, Cabarrus, Charter Day School**, Craven, Evergreen Community**, Franklin, McDowell
Orange Charter**, Warren, Washington Montessori**, Whiteville City
1997, 2005 State 49 Alleghany, Arts Based Elementary**, New Hanover, Scotland
48 Ashe, Central Park School**, Durham, Mount Airy City, Northampton, STARS**
2002 State 47 New Dimensions**, Rockingham, Rowan-Salisbury
46 Asheboro City, Chatham, Cherokee County, Granville, Lee, Macon, Vance Charter**, Wilkes, Yadkin
45 Kannapolis City, Lenoir, Nash-Rocky Mount, PreEminent**, Quality Education**, Sampson, Swain
44 Clinton City, Guilford Prep Academy**, Roanoke Rapids City, Wilson
43 Duplin, Halifax, Hoke, Kinston Charter Academy**, Montgomery, Person, Pitt
42 Carter Community**, East Wake Academy**, Jackson, Martin, Pamlico, Randolph
41 Mitchell, Washington
40 Jones, Mountain Discovery**
2003, 2004 State 39 Bridges**, Chatham Charter**, Elizabeth City/Pasquotank, Healthy Start**, Vance
38 Newton-Conover City
37 ArtSpace Charter**, Clay, Richmond, Torchlight Academy**, Weldon City
36 Bladen, Brevard Academy**, Columbus
35 Community Charter**, Robeson
1994 State 34 Hertford, Sugar Creek**
33 Bertie, Edenton/Chowan
32 Research Triangle**, Rocky Mount Prep Sch**, S.B. Howard**
31 Lexington City
30 C.G. Woodson**
...
27 Academy of Moore County**, Edgecombe, Greene
...
1993 State 24 Thomasville City
...
20 Crosscreek Charter School**, Graham
19 Tiller School**
...
17 Maureen Joy**, Omuteko Gwamaziima**, SPARC Academy**
...
15 Hope Elementary**
...
13 Alpha Academy**
...
6 Children's Village Academy**
* Dillard Academy**, Grandfather Academy**
Notes: †Percents are rounded to the nearest whole percent.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than
or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
**Denotes a charter school. For reporting purposes the charter school name has been abbreviated; the complete charter school name
can be found in the Appendix.
Beginning in 2003, data are reported using the revised standard and are generated using the new scoring model.
Data for 2003 are from the pilot test administration.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Grade 4
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III, by LEA
Table 18. North Carolina Testing Program,
73
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
State Mean Score† 2007 LEA Performance
1 .4... 9 M agellan**
14.5 Metrolina**
1 .4... 3 Q uest Academy**, Summit Charter**
14.0 Mountain Community**
13.9 Lincoln Charter**
13.7 Surry
13.5 Greensboro Academy**
1 .3... 3 U nion Academy**
13.0 Carolina International**, Chapel Hill-Carrboro City, Haywood
12.9 Crossnore Academy**, Sterling Montessori**
12.7 Children's Community**, Transylvania
12.5 Millennium**, Phoenix Academy**
12.3 Franklin Academy**, Success Institute**, The Learning Center**, Watauga
12.1 Catawba, Polk, Tyrrell
12.0 Buncombe, Hyde, Wake
11.9 Avery, Bethel Hill**, Camden, Cape Fear Center**, Cleveland, Currituck, Gates, Henderson,
Iredell-Statesville, Queen's Grant**
11.7 Arapahoe Charter**, Asheville City, Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Clover Garden**, F Delany New School**, Lincoln,
Mooresville City, Orange, Pender, Stokes, Winston-Salem/Forsyth, Yancey
2007 State 11.5 Alexander, American Renaissance**, Anson, Beaufort, Burke, Caldwell, Carteret, Caswell, Cumberland, Dare,
Davidson, Davie, Elkin City, Gaston, Guilford, Harnett, Hickory City, Johnston, Kinston Charter Academy**,
Moore, Mount Airy City, Onslow, Piedmont Community**, Rutherford, Stanly, Union, Wayne, Woods Charter**
11.3 Carter Community**, Charter Day School**, Chatham, Craven, Evergreen Community**, Madison, Orange Charter**,
River Mill Academy**, STARS**, Scotland, Two Rivers Community School**, Vance Charter**, Warren,
Whiteville City
2005, 2006 State 11.1 Alamance-Burlington, Arts Based Elementary**, Cabarrus, Casa Esperanza**, Durham, Forsyth Academies**,
Franklin, McDowell, New Hanover, Perquimans, Roanoke Rapids City, Washington Montessori**
11.0 Cherokee County, Lee, Mitchell, Nash-Rocky Mount, Wilson
2003, 2004 State 10.9 Alleghany, Brunswick, Central Park School**, Clinton City, Duplin, Granville, Halifax, Kannapolis City,
Lenoir, Macon, Martin, Montgomery, Northampton, Pitt, Rockingham, Rowan-Salisbury, Sampson, Wilkes, Yadkin
10.7 ArtSpace Charter**, Ashe, Asheboro City, Brevard Academy**, Bridges**, Guilford Prep Academy**, Jackson,
New Dimensions**, Pamlico, Person, Quality Education**, Randolph, Swain, Washington, Weldon City
10.5 Bladen, Chatham Charter**, Clay, Elizabeth City/Pasquotank, Hoke, Jones, Newton-Conover City, Vance
10.3 Bertie, Columbus, East Wake Academy**, Healthy Start**, Hertford, PreEminent**, Richmond, Robeson,
Sugar Creek**, Tiller School**
10.1 Haliwa-Saponi Tribal**, S.B. Howard**
10.0 Lexington City, Rocky Mount Prep Sch**
9.9 C.G. Woodson**, Edenton/Chowan, Maureen Joy**, Omuteko Gwamaziima**
9.7 Community Charter**, Research Triangle**, Torchlight Academy**
9.5 Edgecombe, Mountain Discovery**
9.3 Academy of Moore County**, Crosscreek Charter School**, Graham, Greene, Thomasville City
9.1 Children's Village Academy**
9....0 Grandfather Academy**
8.7 Hope Elementary**
8....5 Alpha Academy**
7.7 SPARC Academy**
7.5 Dillard Academy**
Notes: †Scale scores are rounded up to the nearest two-tenths of a point.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
**Denotes a charter school. For reporting purposes the charter school name has been abbreviated; the complete charter school name
can be found in the Appendix.
Beginning in 2003, data are reported using the revised standard and are generated using the new scoring model.
Data for 2003 are from the pilot test administration.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Average Total Writing Score, by LEA
Grade 4
Table 19. North Carolina Testing Program
74
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
State 104,687 52.7 1,447 39.4 2,459 69.4 28,436 39.4 10,134 37.4 3,875 53.4 58,336 61.4
Western Region 6,929 55.3 92 43.5 73 68.5 353 42.5 421 37.5 242 55.0 5,748 57.4
Asheville City 255 54.1 0 * 6 50.0 88 38.6 13 30.8 20 30.0 128 71.1
Buncombe 1,835 59.0 8 50.0 25 84.0 87 46.0 127 38.6 100 49.0 1,488 61.8
Cherokee 270 45.6 2 * 4 * 4 * 3 * 1 * 256 45.7
Clay 98 36.7 0 * 1 * 0 * 2 * 2 * 93 37.6
Graham 84 20.2 11 18.2 1 * 0 * 1 * 1 * 70 20.0
Haywood 520 69.8 9 66.7 1 * 4 * 16 56.3 9 88.9 481 70.3
Henderson 894 58.3 6 33.3 9 55.6 29 44.8 104 40.4 40 70.0 706 61.0
Jackson 287 42.2 26 38.5 3 * 4 * 12 8.3 5 80.0 237 43.0
Macon 310 45.8 3 * 3 * 2 * 19 36.8 5 40.0 278 46.8
Madison 177 54.8 2 * 0 * 1 * 3 * 6 33.3 165 55.8
McDowell 476 50.2 0 * 8 50.0 10 40.0 43 25.6 5 40.0 410 53.2
Mitchell 138 41.3 0 * 2 * 0 * 7 * 2 * 127 42.5
Polk 171 62.6 0 * 0 * 8 62.5 17 41.2 5 80.0 141 64.5
Rutherford 688 54.1 0 * 4 * 95 36.8 32 50.0 24 62.5 533 56.8
Swain 122 45.1 22 54.5 2 * 1 * 3 * 0 * 94 40.4
Transylvania 252 69.4 1 * 0 * 10 * 5 60.0 12 58.3 224 69.2
Yancey 166 53.6 0 * 0 * 2 * 12 33.3 1 * 151 56.3
ArtSpace Charter** 43 37.2 0 * 1 * 1 * 0 * 0 * 41 36.6
Brevard Academy** 22 36.4 0 * 1 * 2 * 1 * 0 * 18 44.4
Evergreen Community** 40 50.0 0 * 1 * 0 * 1 * 1 * 37 45.9
F Delany New School** 15 60.0 0 * 0 * 4 * 0 * 1 * 10 60.0
Mountain Community** 18 77.8 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 18 77.8
Mountain Discovery** 15 40.0 2 * 1 * 0 * 0 * 1 * 11 45.5
Summit Charter** 20 80.0 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 20 80.0
The Learning Center** 13 76.9 0 * 0 * 1 * 0 * 1 * 11 72.7
Notes: *Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The ethnic categories may not sum to total number tested because ethnic category may not have been coded on some student answer sheets.
**Denotes a charter school. For reporting purposes the charter school name has been abbreviated; the complete name can be found in the Appendix.
Alternate assessment data by LEA school are available at http://report.ncsu.edu/ncpublicschools.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Grade 4, by LEA and Ethnicity,
Western Region
Total
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Table 20a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
American Indian Asian Black Hispanic Multi-Racial White
75
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
State 104,687 52.7 51,827 59.7 52,860 45.8 56,608 45.4 48,079 61.2 53,578 45.9 2,744 37.5 768 28.5
Western Region 6,929 55.3 3,461 63.2 3,468 47.5 5,891 53.3 1,038 67.1 5,730 53.4 161 48.4 14 50.0
Asheville City 255 54.1 123 55.3 132 53.0 253 54.2 2 * 253 54.2 0 * 0 *
Buncombe 1,835 59.0 926 66.8 909 50.9 1,338 54.8 497 70.2 1,256 54.5 82 58.5 1 *
Cherokee County 270 45.6 110 56.4 160 38.1 268 45.9 2 * 268 45.9 0 * 0 *
Clay 98 36.7 48 37.5 50 36.0 97 36.1 1 * 97 36.1 0 * 0 *
Graham 84 20.2 44 27.3 40 12.5 84 20.2 0 * 84 20.2 0 * 0 *
Haywood 520 69.8 275 76.7 245 62.0 516 70.0 4 * 516 70.0 0 * 0 *
Henderson 894 58.3 456 65.6 438 50.7 661 54.2 233 70.0 661 54.2 0 * 9 33.3
Jackson 287 42.2 136 46.3 151 38.4 282 42.6 5 20.0 282 42.6 0 * 0 *
Macon 310 45.8 154 56.5 156 35.3 286 45.8 24 45.8 286 45.8 0 * 0 *
Madison 177 54.8 88 63.6 89 46.1 177 54.8 0 * 177 54.8 0 * 0 *
McDowell 476 50.2 237 58.6 239 41.8 476 50.2 0 * 476 50.2 0 * 0 *
Mitchell 138 41.3 63 47.6 75 36.0 138 41.3 0 * 138 41.3 0 * 0 *
76
Polk 171 62.6 87 72.4 84 52.4 42 42.9 129 69.0 0 * 42 42.9 0 *
Rutherford 688 54.1 332 63.6 356 45.2 686 54.1 2 * 686 54.1 0 * 1 *
Swain 122 45.1 60 50.0 62 40.3 120 45.0 2 * 120 45.0 0 * 0 *
Transylvania 252 69.4 137 77.4 115 60.0 251 69.7 1 * 251 69.7 0 * 0 *
Yancey 166 53.6 86 61.6 80 45.0 166 53.6 0 * 166 53.6 0 * 3 *
ArtSpace Charter** 43 37.2 22 45.5 21 28.6 0 * 43 37.2 0 * 0 * 0 *
Brevard Academy** 22 36.4 11 54.5 11 18.2 22 36.4 0 * 0 * 22 36.4 0 *
Evergreen Community** 40 50.0 21 57.1 19 42.1 10 30.0 30 56.7 0 * 10 30.0 0 *
F Delany New School** 15 60.0 11 72.7 4 * 4 * 11 72.7 0 * 4 * 0 *
Mountain Community** 18 77.8 8 75.0 10 80.0 0 * 18 77.8 0 * 0 * 0 *
Mountain Discovery** 15 40.0 9 22.2 6 66.7 1 * 14 42.9 0 * 1 * 0 *
Summit Charter** 20 80.0 10 90.0 10 70.0 0 * 20 80.0 0 * 0 * 0 *
The Learning Center** 13 76.9 7 * 6 50.0 13 76.9 0 * 13 76.9 0 * 0 *
Notes: *Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The gender, Title I, and Migrant categories may not sum to total number tested because these categories may not have been coded on some student answer sheets.
**Denotes a charter school. For reporting purposes the charter school name has been abbreviated; the complete name can be found in the Appendix.
Alternate assessment data by LEA school are available at http://report.ncsu.edu/ncpublicschools.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Table 20b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Grade 4, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Western Region
Total Female Male Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Served by Title I Program Targeted Assistance Migrant
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
State 104,687 52.7 1,447 39.4 2,459 69.4 28,436 39.4 10,134 37.4 3,875 53.4 58,336 61.4
Northwest Region 15,853 55.3 33 54.5 363 56.7 2,110 41.8 1,585 36.7 502 53.0 11,260 60.5
Alexander 441 55.1 1 * 9 44.4 16 37.5 20 45.0 8 50.0 387 56.6
Alleghany 104 49.0 0 * 0 * 1 * 16 37.5 1 * 86 50.0
Ashe 248 47.6 1 * 0 * 2 * 14 42.9 7 28.6 224 49.1
Avery 162 57.4 1 * 2 * 1 * 7 14.3 0 * 151 59.6
Burke 981 53.6 0 * 74 45.9 48 37.5 56 35.7 41 39.0 762 57.5
Caldwell 956 56.0 0 * 8 87.5 75 37.3 60 48.3 32 50.0 781 58.3
Catawba 1,259 60.2 6 83.3 87 50.6 86 47.7 84 44.0 46 58.7 950 63.6
Davidson 1,531 56.2 4 * 18 66.7 29 58.6 62 48.4 19 57.9 1,399 56.4
Davie 467 59.3 2 * 6 * 20 30.0 47 42.6 16 50.0 376 62.5
Elkin City 77 63.6 0 * 0 * 6 33.3 9 22.2 1 * 61 72.1
Hickory City 293 53.2 1 * 13 46.2 63 42.9 50 34.0 16 18.8 150 68.7
Iredell-Statesville 1,548 58.5 5 80.0 42 61.9 216 43.5 128 43.8 28 82.1 1,129 62.2
Lexington City 224 31.3 1 * 8 50.0 79 27.8 57 33.3 17 23.5 62 33.9
Mount Airy City 121 47.9 0 * 5 * 13 7.7 20 25.0 8 37.5 75 65.3
Newton-Conover City 198 37.9 0 * 8 25.0 32 21.9 39 25.6 13 46.2 106 47.2
Stokes 531 53.1 2 * 1 * 17 35.3 18 55.6 13 38.5 480 54.4
Surry 627 78.8 2 * 2 * 13 92.3 89 68.5 16 68.8 505 81.0
Thomasville City 197 23.9 1 * 2 * 84 20.2 46 19.6 13 23.1 51 33.3
Watauga 313 61.7 0 * 2 * 3 * 7 14.3 4 * 297 62.6
Wilkes 766 46.3 0 * 5 * 27 25.9 60 33.3 19 52.6 655 47.8
Winston-Salem/Forsyth 3,673 55.5 5 60.0 58 74.1 1,100 44.5 593 30.9 148 64.2 1,769 69.1
Yadkin 436 45.6 0 * 1 * 20 35.0 67 25.4 11 27.3 337 51.0
American Renaissance** 55 56.4 0 * 1 * 4 * 3 * 0 * 47 55.3
Arts Based Elementary** 33 48.5 0 * 3 * 8 75.0 3 * 1 * 18 38.9
Bridges** 18 38.9 0 * 0 * 0 * 1 * 2 * 15 40.0
C.G. Woodson** 27 29.6 0 * 0 * 21 33.3 5 20.0 1 * 0 *
Crossnore Academy** 5 60.0 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 5 60.0
Forsyth Academies** 77 51.9 0 * 0 * 45 53.3 6 16.7 1 * 25 56.0
Grandfather Academy** 2 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 2 *
Millennium** 40 62.5 0 * 0 * 1 * 1 * 1 * 37 64.9
New Dimensions** 15 46.7 0 * 0 * 2 * 0 * 1 * 12 50.0
Quality Education** 20 45.0 0 * 0 * 17 41.2 3 * 0 * 0 *
Success Institute** 8 75.0 0 * 0 * 6 83.3 0 * 1 * 1 *
Two Rivers Community Sch.* 9 55.6 1 * 0 * 0 * 0 * 1 * 7 42.9
Notes: *Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The ethnic categories may not sum to total number tested because ethnic category may not have been coded on some student answer sheets.
**Denotes a charter school. For reporting purposes the charter school name has been abbreviated; the complete name can be found in the Appendix.
Alternate assessment data by LEA school are available at http://report.ncsu.edu/ncpublicschools
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Northwest Region
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grades 4, 7, and 10, 2006-07
Table 20c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2006-07,
Grade 4, by LEA and Ethnicity,
Total American Indian Asian Black Hispanic Multi-Racial White
77
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
State 104,687 52.7 51,827 59.7 52,860 45.8 56,608 45.4 48,079 61.2 53,578 45.9 2,744 37.5 768 28.5
Northwest Region 15,853 55.3 7,802 62.4 8,051 48.4 8,684 49.3 7,169 62.6 8,194 50.2 489 32.9 3 *
Alexander 441 55.1 217 61.8 224 48.7 103 35.0 338 61.2 43 41.9 60 30.0 0 *
Alleghany 104 49.0 52 57.7 52 40.4 104 49.0 0 * 104 49.0 0 * 1 *
Ashe 248 47.6 118 51.7 130 43.8 248 47.6 0 * 248 47.6 0 * 0 *
Avery 162 57.4 76 64.5 86 51.2 133 56.4 29 62.1 133 56.4 0 * 0 *
Burke 981 53.6 498 60.8 483 46.2 980 53.6 1 * 980 53.6 0 * 0 *
Caldwell 956 56.0 502 63.7 454 47.4 953 56.0 3 * 953 56.0 0 * 1 *
Catawba 1,259 60.2 613 68.7 646 52.2 499 55.9 760 63.0 493 56.6 6 * 0 *
Davidson 1,531 56.2 756 65.5 775 47.1 75 20.0 1,456 58.0 0 * 75 20.0 0 *
Davie 467 59.3 234 68.4 233 50.2 82 37.8 385 63.9 0 * 82 37.8 0 *
Elkin City 77 63.6 44 72.7 33 51.5 11 27.3 66 69.7 0 * 11 27.3 0 *
Hickory City 293 53.2 147 63.9 146 42.5 290 53.1 3 * 290 53.1 0 * 0 *
Iredell-Statesville 1,548 58.5 778 65.7 770 51.2 869 51.8 679 67.0 869 51.8 0 * 0 *
Lexington City 224 31.3 101 36.6 123 26.8 224 31.3 0 * 224 31.3 0 * 0 *
Mooresville City 391 58.1 203 62.6 188 53.2 0 * 391 58.1 0 * 0 * 0 *
Mount Airy City 121 47.9 55 49.1 66 47.0 121 47.9 0 * 121 47.9 0 * 0 *
Newton-Conover City 198 37.9 88 50.0 110 28.2 124 33.9 74 44.6 124 33.9 0 * 0 *
Stokes 531 53.1 263 63.9 268 42.5 353 52.4 178 54.5 353 52.4 0 * 0 *
Surry 627 78.8 301 82.7 326 75.2 546 76.2 81 >=95% 545 76.1 0 * 1 *
Thomasville City 197 23.9 107 32.7 90 13.3 196 24.0 1 * 196 24.0 0 * 0 *
Watauga 313 61.7 143 67.1 170 57.1 82 56.1 231 63.6 60 63.3 22 36.4 0 *
Wilkes 766 46.3 372 53.8 394 39.3 765 46.4 1 * 704 44.9 61 63.9 0 *
Winston-Salem/Forsyth 3,673 55.5 1,788 61.5 1,885 49.8 1,455 40.4 2,218 65.3 1,362 41.7 93 21.5 0 *
Yadkin 436 45.6 190 47.9 246 43.9 358 43.6 78 55.1 358 43.6 0 * 0 *
American Renaissance** 55 56.4 27 63.0 28 50.0 0 * 55 56.4 0 * 0 * 0 *
Arts Based Elementary** 33 48.5 17 58.8 16 37.5 4 * 29 51.7 0 * 4 * 0 *
Bridges** 18 38.9 8 62.5 10 20.0 0 * 18 38.9 0 * 0 * 0 *
C.G. Woodson** 27 29.6 15 40.0 12 16.7 27 29.6 0 * 0 * 27 29.6 0 *
Crossnore Academy** 5 60.0 2 * 3 * 5 60.0 0 * 5 60.0 0 * 0 *
Forsyth Academies** 77 51.9 51 58.8 26 38.5 48 37.5 29 75.9 0 * 48 37.5 0 *
Grandfather Academy** 2 * 0 * 2 * 2 * 0 * 2 * 0 * 0 *
Millennium** 40 62.5 20 55.0 20 70.0 0 * 40 62.5 0 * 0 * 0 *
New Dimensions** 15 46.7 3 * 12 58.3 0 * 15 46.7 0 * 0 * 0 *
Quality Education** 20 45.0 7 28.6 13 53.8 20 45.0 0 * 20 45.0 0 * 0 *
Success Institute** 8 75.0 4 * 4 * 7 71.4 1 * 7 71.4 0 * 0 *
Two Rivers Community School** 9 55.6 2 * 7 57.1 0 * 9 55.6 0 * 0 * 0 *
Notes: *Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five. Performance data that are less than or equal to 5.0 percent, or greater than or equal to 95.0 percent, are not displayed.
The gender, Title I, and Migrant categories may not sum to total number tested because these categories may not have been coded on some student answer sheets.
**Denotes a charter school. For reporting purposes the charter school name has been abbreviated; the complete name can be found in the Appendix.
Alternate assessment data by LEA school are available at http://report.ncsu.edu/ncpublicschools.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 21, 2007 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Nor