North Carolina
Testing Program
Report
of
Student Performance
in
Writing
on
The North Carolina General Writing Assessment at Grade 10
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS)
for Writing at Grade 10
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment at Grade 10
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing at Grade 10
2008-09
Published December 2009
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
STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
The guiding mission of the North Carolina State Board of Education is that every public school student
will graduate from high school, globally competitive for work and postsecondary education and prepared for
life in the 21st Century.
WILLIAM C. HARRISON
Chairman :: Fayetteville
REGINALD KENAN
Rose Hill
ROBERT “TOM” SPEED
Boone
WAYNE MCDEVITT
Vice Chair :: Asheville
KEVIN D. HOWELL
Raleigh
MELISSA E. BARTLETT
Roxboro
WALTER DALTON
Lieutenant Governor :: Rutherfordton
SHIRLEY E. HARRIS
Troy
PATRICIA N. WILLOUGHBY
Raleigh
JANET COWELL
State Treasurer :: Raleigh
CHRISTINE J. GREENE
High Point
KATHY A. TAFT
Greenville
JOHN A. TATE III
Charlotte
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:
Dr. Rebecca Garland, Chief Academic Officer :: Academic Services and Instructional Support
6368 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-6368 :: Telephone: (919) 807-3200 :: Fax: (919) 807-4065
Visit us on the Web:: www.ncpublicschools.org
M0709
Report
of
Student Performance
in
Writing
on
The North Carolina General Writing Assessment at Grade 10
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS)
for Writing at Grade 10
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment at Grade 10
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing at Grade 10
2008-09
Published December 2009
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
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.
© 2010 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, Grade 10, 2008-09
North Carolina Testing Program
2008-09
Report of Student Performance in Writing
at
Grade 10
Table of Contents
Introduction .........................................................................................................................................1
Section I
2008-09 State-Level Summary Statistics for the North Carolina General Writing Assessment,
NCCLAS, NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment, and the NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing at
Grade 10 ................................................................................................................................................7
Grade 10 Sample Student Responses – General Writing Assessment ................................................39
Grade 10 Sample Student Responses – NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment ............................57
2008-09 North Carolina General Writing Assessment, Grade 10, Regional by LEA Performance ...73
Section II
Appendices ..........................................................................................................................................89
Appendix A: North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Grade Levels and Types
of Writing by Year...............................................................................................................................91
Appendix B: 1991-92 to 2008-09 Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III, North
Carolina Writing Assessment (General and Alternates), Grade 10.....................................................95
Appendix C:
List of North Carolina Charter Schools, 2008-09 .......................................................99
Appendix D: 2008-09 North Carolina Writing Advisory Consultants...........................................103
i
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Introduction
In June 2008, the North Carolina State Board of Education (SBE) adopted the Framework for Change:
The Next Generation of Assessments and Accountability. This charge led the North Carolina
Department of Public Instruction to implement a new writing system. The North Carolina Writing
Assessment System was implemented for all North Carolina students in grades 4 and 7. The new
writing system focuses on the writing process, it is based upon writing across the curriculum in each
content area, and it involves all educators.
For the 2008-09 school year, the general and alternate writing assessments at grades 4 and 7 were
piloted under the new writing system; therefore, this report presents data for the general and alternate
writing assessments at grade 10 only.
North Carolina General Writing Assessment at Grade 10
The North Carolina Writing Assessment at Grade 10 was redesigned effective with the 2002-2003
school year. The redesign included eliminating the focused-holistic method of hand scoring which had
been used by the North Carolina Program since its inception. In addition, the redesign eliminated the
grade 10 English II Writing Assessment and instead requires a once-a-year writing assessment,
administered in the spring of grade 10, which focuses on informational writing. The type of writing for
grade 10 remains cause and effect or definition. The Writing Assessment at Grade 10 is given to
students statewide in a timed administration of 100 minutes. Student responses are scored by two
independent scorers (effective with the 2002-2003 school year) using the North Carolina Writing
Assessment Scoring Model Rubrics for Content and Conventions.
NCCLAS for Writing at Grade 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). NCCLAS for Writing is available to students with disabilities and NCSCS students with
limited English proficiency who meet specific eligibility requirements. Beginning in the 2009-10
school year, the NCCLAS Writing Assessment is discontinued.
1
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
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 (Occupational Course of Study). 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
(Occupational Course of Study). 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 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.
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing at Grade 10
The NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing is a performance-based writing assessment designed to assess
students with significant cognitive disabilities. 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 on the NCEXTEND1
score scale (0-14). 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
10
Extended informational response (definition or cause/effect)
Table 2. Type of Writing Assessed by Grade Level for NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment
Grade Level
Type of Writing
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.
Distributed Scoring for 2008
Since receiving recommendations from the Writing Assessment Task Force in 2001, the NCDPI has
worked toward the goal of involving North Carolina educators in the scoring process for the Writing
Assessments. The advancement of modern technology has enabled NCDPI to transition from a
regional-based scoring model to a distributed scoring model (remote web-based secure access system)
for the North Carolina General Writing Assessment at Grade 10. Using a distributed scoring model,
2
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Distributed Scoring for 2008 (continued)
trained North Carolina educators, who met qualification criteria, were given the opportunity to score the
North Carolina General Writing Assessments along with qualified professional scorers. Distributed
Scoring utilizes the process of scanning the handwritten student responses into the vendor’s
computerized database system, which distributes them securely to scorers using the web-based
password-protected system. Computer technology enabled scorers to securely download the necessary
computer applications and score student responses.
Traditionally, the NCDPI has contracted with a vendor to score the large-scale writing assessments in
regional scoring centers. The vendor operated these regional scoring centers and supervised the scorers
under strict quality control measures. All training sessions for scorers, however, were conducted by
NCDPI Test Development and NCSU-TOPS staff who were present at these scoring centers. The
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment continued to be scored in this manner due to the small
population size and modified nature of the assessment.
Pearson, the vendor for these projects, maintained a central headquarters to supervise the distributed
scoring and regional scoring operations. In addition, NCDPI personnel monitored scorers and the
scoring process through secure online web access. The NCDPI generated real-time scoring reports and
daily data statistics.
Reliability Standards for Distributed Scoring
All scorers, including North Carolina educators who applied to become scorers, had to meet the rigorous
requirements set forth by the NCDPI as in previous years. Scorers first had to meet the eligibility
criteria, sign Test Security and Confidentiality Agreements, pass the necessary training requirements,
and qualify for a scoring position.
After qualifying to score the assessments, scorers were required by NCDPI to maintain the industry
standard inter-rater perfect agreement (reliability) of 70 percent. Scorers also had to maintain a 70
percent validity standard (agreement with “true scores” assigned to responses by the Writing Advisory
Consultants and NCDPI Test Development Staff). All scorers who did not meet or exceed the 70
percent standards (inter-rater and validity) were removed from the project and all scores assigned to
student responses were invalidated. These student responses were subsequently rescored by two
qualified scorers.
Table 3: Inter-Rater Reliability and Validity for the 2008-09 Scoring
Grade Level
10 General
10 General
Rubric Trait
Content
Conventions
IRR
72
74
Validity
80
81
10 NCEXTEND2 OCS
10 NCEXTEND2 OCS
Content
Conventions
77
78
84
84
3
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
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 4. SBE Adopted Achievement Level Ranges for the North Carolina
General Writing Assessment at Grade 10 (October, 2003)
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
Grade 10
4-7
8-11
12-16
17-20
Grade 10
Table 5. SBE Adopted Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCCLAS for Writing Assessment at Grade 10 (May, 2007)
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
4-6
7-9
10-13
14-16
4
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Writing Assessment Achievement Level Ranges (continued)
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
Grade 10
Table 7. SBE Adopted Interim Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing at Grade 10 (July, 2008)
Level I
Level II
Level III
Level IV
0-1
2-5
6-11
12-14
The State Board of Education policy delineating achievement-level ranges and performance-level
descriptions (PLDs) can be accessed at http://sbepolicy.dpi.state.nc.us/
Table 8: Performance Level Descriptions
Test Type
NC End-of-Grade Tests in Reading, Mathematics
at Grades 3-8, Science at Grades 5 & 8, and the
NC Writing Assessments at Grades 4, 7, & 10
NCEXTEND2 (EOG) Writing Assessment
Grades 4 and 7, and the NCEXTEND2 OCS
Writing Assessment at Grade 10
Interim Achievement Level Ranges for the
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing
SBE Policy ID Number
GCS-C-018
GCS-C-027
GCS-C-029
5
[This page intentionally blank]
6
2008-09
State-Level Summary Statistics
North Carolina General Writing Assessment
North Carolina Checklist of Academic
Standards (NCCLAS) for Writing
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing
at Grade 10
7
[This page intentionally blank]
8
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
The North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Grade 10
Results of
the
North Carolina
General
Writing
Assessment
at Grade 10
The prompt for the 2009 Grade 10 North Carolina General Writing Assessment
asked students to write an “informational” definition response to the following
prompt:
Write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in which you examine the effects
of cell phone use on everyday life. You may use the following information, your
own experiences, observations, and/or readings.
Use of cell phones in the United States has become part of everyday life for many
people. Examine the following information taken from a survey on cell phone
use:







3% admitted to being addicted to their cell phones.
57% turn their cell phones off at the movies or in a theater, while 30%
turn off the ringer and let voice mail answer their calls.
43% turn their cell phones off in a restaurant, while 24% turn off the
ringer and let voice mail answer their calls.
76% use their cell phones in their cars.
60% take calls at the supermarket.
52% take calls on public transportation.
46% use their cell phones for 10% of all their phone calls.
Source: Let’s Talk (2004)
You know the people who pull out their loud-ringing, car-horn-sounding cell
phones and talk so loud you can hear them a block away. These are the same
people who have their cell phones turned on in a movie theater. When one cell
phone rings at a movie, it causes a domino effect of 20 people pulling out their
cell phones to see if it’s theirs.
It’s obvious the caller asks, “Whatcha doing?” The reply is, “I’m at the show.”
The real question should be why is your phone turned on in a movie theater? At
least put the phone on vibrate, if you must be reached. I can understand if a
doctor gets a call because there’s an emergency. But, if someone’s calling from
your house to ask what flavor of Kool-Aid you want, that can wait.
Movie theaters should have a cell phone security detail. As soon as someone
utters, “I’m at the show,” that person should be escorted out.
Source: John Pechacek, I Got Jokes and Anecdotes (2003)
9
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Results of
the
North Carolina
General
Writing
Assessment
at Grade 10
(continued)
At the tenth grade level, the North Carolina General Writing Assessment results
showed that students maintained the significant gains made from the previous
year. This year 71.8 percent of tenth grade students scored proficient. Students
were engaged in the prompt topic and all students were knowledgeable about the
ramifications of cell phone use. Students demonstrated keen insight on cell phone
applications (i.e., text messaging, internet access, games, and music) and the
impact cell phones have had on society. This allowed for elaborated and wellsupported student responses. The content and conventions scores reflect the
continued effectiveness of instructional delivery.
Contracted readers scored 96,580 public school responses for grade 10 from the
2008-09 North Carolina General Writing Assessment. The scores show that 71.8
percent of the tenth graders wrote well enough to score at or above Level III. A
small percentage of the tenth graders (less than or equal to five percent) in the
2008-09 North Carolina General Writing Assessment received the highest scores
in Level IV, and 9.5 percent received the lowest scores in Level I. In 2008-09,
less than 0.2 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 tenth graders participating in the North
Carolina General Writing Assessment in 2008-09 was 8.6 in a range of four to
sixteen. The average conventions score was 3.3 on a scale of zero to four. The
average Total Writing Score was 12.0 in a range of four to twenty.
Observations
The following observations were noted during the scoring process:

Most students found the prompt very accessible. Most responses dealt
with students’ personal experiences with cell phones, and some specificity
was included in most responses, as students described using their phones
to send text messages and play games.

Some students attempted to contrast positive and negative effects of cell
phone use in daily life; however, they did not do so consistently, either
using general or list-like elaborations that led to either major lapses in
logical progression of ideas, or major weaknesses in relatedness to and in
support of the topic. This hindered students’ ability to form a complete
and unified piece of writing. Many students expressed somewhat
sophisticated ideas, but most were unable to consistently support or
elaborate those ideas.

Students that were successful tended to focus on either positive or
negative effects of cell phone use, or were able to focus on contrasting
positive and negative effects of specific situations or specific examples
(from talking on the phone in public places and displaying rude manners
to driving while texting and causing major accidents). In either case,
students that narrowed their focus were better able to consistently support
their ideas.
10
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Observations
(continued)
Performance of
Subgroups at
Grade 10

Almost all students were able to discuss how cell phones affect their
personal lives and some were able to discuss how cell phone usage affects
more global or philosophical subjects, such the ability to communicate
anywhere in the world and the eradication of face-to-face social
interactions.

The most common sentence formation errors were comma splices,
fragments, and run-ons. The most common usage error was the failure to
use a word according to standard meaning, such as there for their or your
for you’re. In mechanics, spelling errors and comma usage errors were
most common.
Gender
Approximately 77.6 percent of the female students scored at or above Level III
compared to 66.0 percent for male students.
Ethnicity
About 80.1 percent of White students scored at or above Level III compared to
79.1 percent of the Asian students, 75.3 percent of Multi-Racial students, 58.0
percent of Hispanic students, 58.0 percent of Black students, and 57.2 percent of
American Indian students.
There were 96,580 tenth grade public school student responses scored by two
independent readers. The inter-rater reliability rates (agreement rates) of the
readers are shown in Table 7. 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 General Writing Assessment
Tenth Grade Reader Agreement Statistics
Perfect
Adjacent
Total Public
Agreement
Agreement
School Papers
Percent
Percent
Content
96,580
72.0
27.0
Conventions 96,580
74.0
24.0
Resolution
Required
Percent
1.0
2.0
The following pages, and Appendix B, present data for the Grade 10 North
Carolina General Writing Assessments. Figure 1 indicates that an increase of 31.9
percent of students scoring at or above Achievement Level III on the North
Carolina General Writing Assessment occurred between the pilot year and the
current year, an increase of 12.6 percent from 2002-03 to 2003-04, a decrease of
4.7 percent between 2003-04 and 2004-05, an increase of 5.5 percent from 200405 to 2005-06, an increase of 21.0 percent between 2006-07 and 2007-08, and a
0.6 percent decrease between 2007-08 and 2008-09. Table 16a, a table of
Achievement Levels by subgroup, demonstrates that females outperformed males.
Also, White, Asian, and Multi-Racial students performed at a higher level
11
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Performance of
Subgroups at
Grade 10
(continued)
than the Hispanic, Black, and American Indian subgroups. Table 16a. also
indicates that less than or equal to five percent of tenth graders reached
Achievement Level IV, 69.2 percent of the students received a III, 18.7 percent
received a II, and 9.5 percent received Achievement Level I.
12
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
The NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment - Grade 10
Results of
the
NCEXTEND2
OCS Writing
Assessment
at Grade 10
The prompt for the 2009 Grade 10 NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment asked
students to write an expressive journal entry about a person who helped them in
their life.
Think about the one person who has helped you the most. Write a journal entry
telling about that person and how that person helped you.
Contracted readers scored 2,099 public school responses for grade 10 from the
2008-09 NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment. The scores show that 32.8
percent of the tenth graders wrote well enough to score at or above Level III. Less
than or equal to five percent of the tenth graders in the 2008-09 NCEXTEND2
OCS Writing Assessment received the highest scores in Level IV, and 35.1
percent received the lowest scores in Level I. In 2008-09, 1.6 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 tenth graders taking the NCEXTEND2
OCS Writing Assessment in 2008-09 was 7.2 in a range of four to sixteen. The
average conventions score was 1.7 in a range of zero to four. The average Total
Writing Assessment Score was 9.0 out of a possible 20.
Observations
The following observations were noted during the scoring process:

The prompt asked students to write a journal entry describing the person
who helped them the most, and most student responses found this year’s
prompt very accessible.

Typical student responses addressed the topic by identifying a close
relative such as their parent, grandparent, sibling, etc., or choosing a
favorite teacher.

Most student responses described how the person supplied daily caregiving, taught life lessons, provided for the family, and acted as a role
model.

Students who were successful provided more clear and specific examples
to support why they chose the person, and demonstrated the ability to
develop a logical progression of ideas.

The most common sentence formation errors were run-ons, fragments, and
comma splices. The most common usage errors were subject/verb
agreement, or misusing correct words in place of a homophone “there”
instead of “their” or “your” rather than “you’re.” In mechanics, spelling
13
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Observations
(continued)
errors, capitalization, and comma usage were the most prevalent of all convention
errors.
Gender
Approximately 40.8 percent of the female students scored at or above Level III
compared to 28.6 percent for male students.
Ethnicity
38.1 percent of Multi-Racial students scored at or above Level III compared to
35.5 percent of White students, 32.6 percent of Black students, 21.6 percent of
Hispanic students, 17.6 percent of Asian students, and 15.6 percent of American
Indian students.
There were 2,099 tenth grade public school student responses scored by two
independent readers. The inter-rater reliability rates (agreement rates) of the
readers are shown 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 10. NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment
Tenth Grade Reader Agreement Statistics
Perfect
Adjacent
Total Public
Agreement
Agreement
School Papers
Percent
Percent
Content
2,099
77.0
22.0
Conventions 2,099
78.0
21.0
Resolution
Required
Percent
1.0
1.0
The following pages, and Appendix B, present data for the Grade 10
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment. Table 16c, a table of Achievement
Levels by subgroup, demonstrates that females outperformed males. Table 16c,
also indicates that less than or equal to five percent of tenth graders reached
Achievement Level IV, while 30.5 percent of the students received a III, 32.1
percent received a II, and 35.1 percent received Achievement Level I.
14
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Figure 1. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessments, 2002-03 to 2008-09,
Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III
Grade 10
100
90
15
Percent of Students
74.0
70
67.1
57.8
53.1
60
50.0
NCAAP
72.4
53.3
50.2
52.5
47.8
39.9
30
29.8
20
11.1
7.9
77.0
71.8
GENERAL
ASSESSMENT
62.8
51.4
50
40
NCCLAS
83.8
80
NCEXTEND1
41.4
32.8
28.8
22.4
NCEXTEND2 OCS
9.8
10
NCAAAI
0
1
2002-03
2003-04
2004-05
2005-06
2006-07
2007-08
2008-09
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.
The vertical line indicates the NCAAAI was discontinued and replaced by NCCLAS in 2005-06. Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, NCCLAS is discontinued.
The NCAAP was discontinued and NCEXTEND2 OCS and NCEXTEND1 writing assessments were operationalized in 2006-07.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountablility Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Figure 2. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 10, by Gender and Ethnicity
86.1%
White Female
*N=27,825
82.3%
Asian Female
*N=1,201
81.3%
Multi-Racial Female
*N=1,312
Asian Male
75.9%
*N=1,168
74.2%
White Male
*N=28,420
68.6%
Multi-Racial Male
*N=1,168
64.3%
Black Female
*N=14,347
63.2%
American Indian Female
*N=606
Hispanic Female
63.1%
*N=3,381
53.2%
Hispanic Male
*N=3,527
*N=13,087
50.4%
American Indian Male
*N=538
State Percent
51.1%
Black Male
71.8%
State
*N=96,580
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Percent of Students
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 12, 2009 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
16
100%
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Figure 3. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2008-09,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 10, By Gender and Ethnicity
White Female
>=95.0%
*N=15
91.7%
White Male
*N=36
Black Female
86.7%
*N=15
Black Male
81.8%
*N=11
Multi-Racial Male
80.0%
*N=5
Asian Female
73.3%
*N=15
Asian Male
71.9%
*N=32
Hispanic Female
71.8%
*N=39
66.1%
Hispanic Male
*N=62
**
State Percent
Multi-Racial Female
*N=0
American Indian Male
**
*N=0
American Indian Female
Percent of Students
**
*N=0
77.0%
State
*N=230
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of Students
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS).
**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.
Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, the NCCLAS is discontinued.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
17
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Figure 4. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ), 2008-09,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 10, By Gender and Ethnicity
Multi-Racial Female
55.0%
*N=20
45.8%
White Female
*N=294
38.8%
Black Female
*N=355
30.0%
White Male
*N=555
Black Male
29.6%
*N=689
Hispanic Female
26.2%
*N=42
American Indian Female
23.5%
*N=17
Multi-Racial Male
22.7%
*N=22
Asian Male
21.4%
*N=14
Hispanic Male
18.3%
American Indian Male
10.7%
*N=28
Asian Female
State Percent
*N=60
Percent of Students
**
*N=3
State
32.8%
*N=2,099
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of Students
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ).
**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 12, 2009 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
18
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Figure 5. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2008-09,
Percent of Students At or Above Level III,
Grade 10, By Gender and Ethnicity
Hispanic Male
52.0%
*N=25
Asian Male
46.2%
*N=13
46.2%
Black Male
*N=199
44.7%
White Female
*N=114
Black Female
43.0%
*N=86
35.8%
White Male
*N=215
21.4%
Hispanic Female
*N=14
18.2%
American Indian Male
*N=11
Multi-Racial Male
**
American Indian Female
State Percent
*N=4
**
*N=4
Multi-Racial Female
**
Percent of Students
*N=3
Asian Female
**
*N=2
State
41.4%
*N=690
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Percent of Students
Notes: *N counts equal the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ).
**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 12, 2009 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
19
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 11. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessments, 2008-09
Statewide Number of Students Participating in the General Assessment, Taking Alternate Assessments, and Number Not Tested
Grade 10
Not Tested
Category
20
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Economically Disadvantaged
Title I
Not Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Not Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Not Limited English Proficient
Not Exceptional
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
Students with IEPs
Students without IEPs
Students with Disabilities
Students without Disabilities
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Specific Learning Disability
Multiple Disabilities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Notes:
Membership1
Number
2
Tested
(General
Writing)
Percent
Tested
(General
Writing)
Mean
General
Writing
Score
Percent
Proficient
General
Writing
102,654
51,070
51,584
1,273
2,528
30,187
7,509
2,632
58,525
38,821
63,833
966
101,688
735
186
46
102,608
4,050
98,604
74,360
16,799
11,495
91,159
11,786
90,868
506
2
3
672
131
1,644
325
53
5,205
128
2,421
83
185
46
37
291
96,580
48,672
47,908
1,144
2,369
27,434
6,908
2,480
56,245
35,470
61,110
827
95,753
605
185
37
96,543
3,617
92,963
71,813
16,734
8,033
88,547
8,317
88,263
225
1
3
480
103
283
4
1
4,606
6
1,985
57
180
26
27
284
100.0
50.4
49.6
1.2
2.5
28.4
7.2
2.6
58.2
36.7
63.3
0.9
99.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
100.0
3.7
96.3
74.4
17.3
8.3
91.7
8.6
91.4
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
4.8
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
12.0
12.4
11.5
10.8
12.9
10.9
11.0
12.2
12.6
10.9
12.6
10.6
12.0
10.0
12.9
9.3
12.0
9.6
12.1
11.8
14.1
9.4
12.2
9.5
12.2
10.4
*
*
8.7
9.7
7.4
*
*
9.4
7.2
9.6
10.5
10.8
9.7
10.8
11.4
71.8
77.6
66.0
57.2
79.1
58.0
58.0
75.3
80.1
57.7
80.0
57.1
72.0
49.1
87.0
37.8
71.8
38.2
73.1
70.3
>=95.0%
35.7
75.1
36.6
75.1
52.0
*
*
29.2
42.7
11.0
*
*
34.5
16.7
39.2
50.9
53.9
38.5
55.6
62.0
Percent
Number
Percent
Proficient
Alternate
Alternate
Alternate
Writing
Writing
Writing
Assessments Assessments Assessments
3,019
2.9
38.2
1,038
2.0
44.3
1,981
3.8
34.9
60
4.7
18.3
79
3.1
55.7
1,355
4.5
36.2
242
3.2
44.2
54
2.1
40.7
1,229
2.1
38.8
2,067
5.3
38.1
952
1.5
38.3
45
4.7
33.3
2,974
2.9
38.2
44
6.0
34.1
0
0.0
*
2
4.3
*
3,017
2.9
38.2
265
6.5
56.2
2,754
2.8
36.4
187
0.3
68.4
0
0.0
*
2,832
24.6
36.2
187
0.2
68.4
2,832
24.0
36.2
187
0.2
68.4
259
51.2
37.8
1
50.0
*
0
0.0
*
89
13.2
39.3
24
18.3
12.5
1,246
75.8
33.3
304
93.5
32.9
43
81.1
9.3
401
7.7
44.9
103
80.5
24.3
308
12.7
45.8
23
27.7
39.1
3
1.6
*
17
37.0
47.1
7
18.9
42.9
0
0.0
*
Number
Absent or
Other
3,055
1,360
1,695
69
80
1,398
359
98
1,051
1,284
1,771
94
2,961
86
1
7
3,048
168
2,887
2,360
65
630
2,425
637
2,418
22
0
0
103
4
115
17
9
198
19
128
3
2
3
3
7
Percent
Absent or
Other
3.0
2.7
3.3
5.4
3.2
4.6
4.8
3.7
1.8
3.3
2.8
9.7
2.9
11.7
0.5
15.2
3.0
4.1
2.9
3.2
0.4
5.5
2.7
5.4
2.7
4.3
0.0
0.0
15.3
3.1
7.0
5.2
17.0
3.8
14.8
5.3
3.6
1.1
6.5
8.1
2.4
Number
Participating
99,599
49,710
49,889
1,204
2,448
28,789
7,150
2,534
57,474
37,537
62,062
872
98,727
649
185
39
99,560
3,882
95,717
72,000
16,734
10,865
88,734
11,149
88,450
484
2
3
569
127
1,529
308
44
5,007
109
2,293
80
183
43
34
284
1
"Membership" is the total number of students on the 2008-09 Disag_Students data file who were present on the first day of spring, 2009.
2
"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina 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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Percent
Participating
97.0
97.3
96.7
94.6
96.8
95.4
95.2
96.3
98.2
96.7
97.2
90.3
97.1
88.3
99.5
84.8
97.0
95.9
97.1
96.8
99.6
94.5
97.3
94.6
97.3
95.7
100.0
100.0
84.7
96.9
93.0
94.8
83.0
96.2
85.2
94.7
96.4
98.9
93.5
91.9
97.6
Percent
Proficient All
Tests
68.7
74.9
62.6
52.2
75.9
54.4
54.8
71.8
77.8
54.8
77.2
50.4
68.9
42.4
86.6
32.6
68.7
37.8
70.0
68.0
95.4
33.9
73.1
34.5
73.1
42.5
*
*
26.0
35.9
27.1
31.7
7.5
34.0
20.3
38.0
45.8
54.1
39.1
48.6
60.5
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 12. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 1991-92 to 2008-09,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
Grade 10
Level 1
Grade 10
Number
Tested
1991-92
69,582
1992-93
72,101
1993-94
72,789
1994-95
78,384
1995-96
79,951
1996-97
79,662
1997-98
81,261
1998-99
81,563
1999-00
82,418
2000-01
86,034
2001-021
―
2
84,093
2003-04
88,633
2004-05
93,862
2005-06
96,496
2006-07
97,796
2007-08
97,833
2008-09
96,580
2002-03
N Passing
Percent Passing
30,296
43.5
25,592
35.5
24,197
33.2
17,000
21.7
16,399
20.5
13,777
17.3
11,922
14.7
8,066
9.9
7,441
9.0
6,448
7.5
―
15,815
18.8
8,311
9.4
16,558
17.6
12,538
13.0
15,606
16.0
10,931
11.2
9,184
9.5
Achievement Levels
Level II
Level III
N Passing
Percent Passing
23,799
34.2
27,220
37.8
25,103
34.5
31,064
39.6
24,800
31.0
26,258
33.0
31,995
39.4
27,156
33.3
27,150
32.9
33,192
38.6
―
34,701
41.3
33,793
38.1
32,446
34.6
32,548
33.7
31,934
32.7
16,119
16.5
18,023
18.7
1
N Passing
Percent Passing
12,308
17.7
14,730
20.4
17,703
24.3
25,258
32.2
26,269
32.9
29,881
37.5
29,204
35.9
32,680
40.1
35,712
43.3
37,512
43.6
―
32,705
38.9
46,010
51.9
44,617
47.5
50,145
52.0
49,517
50.6
68,996
70.5
66,798
69.2
Level IV
N Passing
Percent Passing
3,179
4.6
4,559
6.3
5,786
7.9
5,020
6.4
12,483
15.6
9,746
12.2
8,140
10.0
13,661
16.7
12,115
14.7
8,882
10.3
―
872
1.0
519
0.6
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
Notes: The North Carolina Writing Assessment was not administered in grade 10 during the 2001-02 school year.
2
The writing standard, scale, and scoring model changed effective with the 2002-03 school year.
*Beginning in 2004-05, 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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
21
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 13. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for Writing, 2004-05 to 2008-09,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
Grade 10
Achievement Levels
Level II
Level III
Level I
2004-05
Number
Tested
336
2005-06
171
2006-07
215
2007-08
208
2008-09
230
Grade 10
N Passing
Percent Passing
188
56.0
68
39.8
25
11.6
28
13.5
19
8.3
N Passing
Percent Passing
113
33.6
52
30.4
55
25.6
26
12.5
34
14.8
N Passing
Percent Passing
30
8.9
49
28.7
119
55.3
125
60.1
156
67.8
Level IV
N Passing
Percent Passing
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
16
7.4
29
13.9
21
9.1
Table 14. North Carolina Testing Program
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment, 2006-07 to 2008-09,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
Grade 10
Achievement Levels
Level II
Level III
Level I
2006-07
Number
Tested
2,143
2007-08
2,196
2008-09
2,099
Grade 10
N Passing
Percent Passing
716
33.4
845
38.5
736
35.1
N Passing
Percent Passing
809
37.8
858
39.1
674
32.1
N Passing
Percent Passing
572
26.7
480
21.9
641
30.5
Level IV
N Passing
Percent Passing
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
Table 15. North Carolina Testing Program
NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing, 2006-07 to 2008-09,
Distribution of Achievement Levels Across Years,
Grade 10
Achievement Levels
Level II
Level III
Level I
2006-07
Number
Tested
681
2007-08
630
2008-09
690
Grade 10
N Passing
Percent Passing
91
13.4
97
15.4
107
15.5
N Passing
Percent Passing
*
<=5.0%
217
34.4
297
43.0
N Passing
Percent Passing
108
15.9
261
41.4
264
38.3
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.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
22
Level IV
N Passing
Percent Passing
463
68.0
55
8.7
*
<=5.0%
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 16a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, Title I, and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Grade 10
Category
23
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
AIG Reading
AIG Mathematics
Students with IEPs
Students with Disabilities
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Number
Tested1
(General)
96,580
48,672
47,908
1,144
2,369
27,434
6,908
2,480
56,245
35,470
95,753
605
185
37
3,617
16,734
13,902
14,838
8,033
8,317
225
1
3
480
103
283
4
1
Percent2
(General)
Number
At or
Above
Level III
Percent
At or
Above
Level III
Number
At
Level I
Percent
At
Level I
Number
At
Level II
Percent
At
Level II
Number
At
Level III
Percent
At
Level III
Number
At
Level IV
Percent
At
Level IV
100.0
50.4
49.6
1.2
2.5
28.4
7.2
2.6
58.2
36.7
99.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
3.7
17.3
14.4
15.4
8.3
8.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
69,373
37,771
31,602
654
1,875
15,923
4,010
1,868
45,043
20,468
68,901
297
161
14
1,380
*
*
*
2,871
3,047
117
*
*
140
44
31
*
*
71.8
77.6
66.0
57.2
79.1
58.0
58.0
75.3
80.1
57.7
72.0
49.1
87.0
37.8
38.2
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
35.7
36.6
52.0
*
*
29.2
42.7
11.0
*
*
9,184
2,997
6,187
194
177
4,163
1,107
189
3,354
5,524
9,022
145
*
13
989
*
*
*
2,507
2,546
66
*
*
206
26
156
*
*
9.5
6.2
12.9
17.0
7.5
15.2
16.0
7.6
6.0
15.6
9.4
24.0
<=5.0%
35.1
27.3
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
31.2
30.6
29.3
*
*
42.9
25.2
55.1
*
*
18,023
7,904
10,119
296
317
7,348
1,791
423
7,848
9,478
17,830
163
20
10
1,248
*
*
*
2,655
2,724
42
*
*
134
33
96
*
*
18.7
16.2
21.1
25.9
13.4
26.8
25.9
17.1
14.0
26.7
18.6
26.9
10.8
27.0
34.5
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
33.1
32.8
18.7
*
*
27.9
32.0
33.9
*
*
66,798
36,267
30,531
650
1,692
15,698
3,931
1,778
43,049
20,229
66,329
296
159
14
1,370
14,578
12,034
12,905
2,829
2,997
111
*
*
139
42
31
*
*
69.2
74.5
63.7
56.8
71.4
57.2
56.9
71.7
76.5
57.0
69.3
48.9
85.9
37.8
37.9
87.1
86.6
87.0
35.2
36.0
49.3
*
*
29.0
40.8
11.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
183
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1,452
1,323
1,315
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
7.7
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
8.7
9.5
8.9
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
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.
*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 "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 16a. (cont.) North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, Title I, and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Grade 10
Category
Percent2
(General)
Number
At or
Above
Percent
At or
Above
Number
At
Percent
At
Number
At
Percent
At
Number
At
Percent
At
Number
At
Percent
At
Level III
Level III
Level I
Level I
Level II
Level II
Level III
Level III
Level IV
Level IV
4,606
1,570
857
1,924
935
6
1,985
57
180
26
27
284
4.8
1.6
0.9
2.0
1.0
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
1,590
477
267
582
299
1
779
29
97
10
15
176
34.5
30.4
31.2
30.2
32.0
16.7
39.2
50.9
53.9
38.5
55.6
62.0
1,393
515
299
654
312
4
577
12
31
8
5
39
30.2
32.8
34.9
34.0
33.4
66.7
29.1
21.1
17.2
30.8
18.5
13.7
1,623
578
291
688
324
1
629
16
52
8
7
69
35.2
36.8
34.0
35.8
34.7
16.7
31.7
28.1
28.9
30.8
25.9
24.3
1,569
473
266
571
297
1
773
27
94
10
15
168
34.1
30.1
31.0
29.7
31.8
16.7
38.9
47.4
52.2
38.5
55.6
59.2
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
2
24
54
1
0
88
13
5
363
2,518
149
20
515
6,547
4,979
852
0
82
1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.6
0.2
0.0
0.5
6.8
5.2
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
*
13
37
*
*
*
1
3
114
588
100
11
162
2,366
1,575
223
*
21
*
*
54.2
68.5
*
*
<=5.0%
7.7
60.0
31.4
23.4
67.1
55.0
31.5
36.1
31.6
26.2
*
25.6
*
*
5
6
*
*
27
8
1
129
1,011
14
4
196
1,981
1,684
320
*
34
*
*
20.8
11.1
*
*
30.7
61.5
20.0
35.5
40.2
9.4
20.0
38.1
30.3
33.8
37.6
*
41.5
*
*
6
11
*
*
57
4
1
120
919
35
5
157
2,200
1,720
309
*
27
*
*
25.0
20.4
*
*
64.8
30.8
20.0
33.1
36.5
23.5
25.0
30.5
33.6
34.5
36.3
*
32.9
*
*
13
35
*
*
*
1
3
112
585
88
11
162
2,329
1,554
222
*
21
*
*
54.2
64.8
*
*
<=5.0%
7.7
60.0
30.9
23.2
59.1
55.0
31.5
35.6
31.2
26.1
*
25.6
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
12
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
8.1
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
*
Number
Tested1
(General)
Students with Disabilities (continued)
24
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Accommodations
Braille Edition
Large Print
Assistive Technology
Braille Writer/Slate & Stylus
Cranmer Abacus
Dictation to Scribe
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test
Magnification Devices
Student Marks in Test Book
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor
Hospital/Home Testing
Multiple Test Sessions
Scheduled Extended Time
Testing in a Separate Room
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator
One Item per Page
Read Test Aloud to Self
Accommodation Notification Form
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.
*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 "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 16b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2008-09
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, Title I, and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Grade 10
Category
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
AIG Reading
AIG Mathematics
Students with IEPs
3
Students with Disabilities
25
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Miscoded
Number
Tested1
(NCCLAS)
230
84
146
0
47
26
101
5
51
146
230
0
0
0
169
0
0
0
58
58
3
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
39
0
0
36
0
0
12
1
0
0
0
0
3
Percent2
(NCCLAS)
Number
At or
Above
Level III
Percent
At or
Above
Level III
Number
At
Level I
Percent
At
Level I
Number
At
Level II
Percent
At
Level II
Number
At
Level III
Percent
At
Level III
Number
At
Level IV
Percent
At
Level IV
100.0
36.5
63.5
0.0
20.4
11.3
43.9
2.2
22.2
63.5
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.2
25.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
17.0
0.0
0.0
15.7
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0
0.0
1.3
177
67
110
*
34
22
69
4
48
104
177
*
*
*
122
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
34
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
77.0
79.8
75.3
*
72.3
84.6
68.3
80.0
94.1
71.2
77.0
*
*
*
72.2
*
*
*
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>=95.0%
*
*
94.4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
19
6
13
*
4
*
14
*
*
16
19
*
*
*
16
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
8.3
7.1
8.9
*
8.5
<=5.0%
13.9
*
<=5.0%
11.0
8.3
*
*
*
9.5
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
34
11
23
*
9
4
18
1
*
26
34
*
*
*
31
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
14.8
13.1
15.8
*
19.1
15.4
17.8
20.0
<=5.0%
17.8
14.8
*
*
*
18.3
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
156
55
101
*
27
15
64
4
46
93
156
*
*
*
102
*
*
*
55
55
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
34
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
67.8
65.5
69.2
*
57.4
57.7
63.4
80.0
90.2
63.7
67.8
*
*
*
60.4
*
*
*
94.8
94.8
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>=95.0%
*
*
94.4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
21
12
9
*
7
7
*
*
*
11
21
*
*
*
20
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
9.1
14.3
6.2
*
14.9
26.9
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
7.5
9.1
*
*
*
11.8
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the NCCLAS Writing Assessment. Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, the NCCLAS is discontinued.
2
"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*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 "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 16c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ), 2008-09
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, Title I, and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Grade 10
Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND2
OCS )
Percent2
(NCEXTEND2
OCS )
Number
At or
Above
Level III
Percent
At or
Above
Level III
Number
At
Level I
Percent
At
Level I
Number
At
Level II
Percent
At
Level II
Number
At
Level III
Percent
At
Level III
Number
At
Level IV
Percent
At
Level IV
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
AIG Reading
AIG Mathematics
Students with IEPs
2,099
731
1,368
45
17
1,044
102
42
849
1,508
2,060
38
0
1
78
0
0
0
2,084
100.0
34.8
65.2
2.1
0.8
49.7
4.9
2.0
40.4
71.8
98.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.3
689
298
391
7
3
340
22
16
301
501
676
13
*
*
19
*
*
*
682
32.8
40.8
28.6
15.6
17.6
32.6
21.6
38.1
35.5
33.2
32.8
34.2
*
*
24.4
*
*
*
32.7
736
192
544
22
8
329
50
17
310
514
721
15
*
*
35
*
*
*
733
35.1
26.3
39.8
48.9
47.1
31.5
49.0
40.5
36.5
34.1
35.0
39.5
*
*
44.9
*
*
*
35.2
674
241
433
16
6
375
30
9
238
493
663
10
*
*
24
*
*
*
669
32.1
33.0
31.7
35.6
35.3
35.9
29.4
21.4
28.0
32.7
32.2
26.3
*
*
30.8
*
*
*
32.1
641
275
366
6
3
318
20
16
278
467
631
10
*
*
18
*
*
*
636
30.5
37.6
26.8
13.3
17.6
30.5
19.6
38.1
32.7
31.0
30.6
26.3
*
*
23.1
*
*
*
30.5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
7.9
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
*
<=5.0%
Students with Disabilities 3
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
2,084
103
0
0
85
22
1,143
42
0
99.3
4.9
0.0
0.0
4.0
1.0
54.5
2.0
0.0
682
30
*
*
32
2
339
4
*
32.7
29.1
*
*
37.6
9.1
29.7
9.5
*
733
51
*
*
29
12
435
28
*
35.2
49.5
*
*
34.1
54.5
38.1
66.7
*
669
22
*
*
24
8
369
10
*
32.1
21.4
*
*
28.2
36.4
32.3
23.8
*
636
29
*
*
29
2
317
4
*
30.5
28.2
*
*
34.1
9.1
27.7
9.5
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
Category
26
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment NCEXTEND2
(
OCS ).
2
"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*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 "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 16c. (cont.) North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ), 2008-09
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, Title I, and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Grade 10
Category
27
Students with Disabilities (continued)
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Miscoded
Accommodations
Braille Edition
Large Print
Assistive Technology
Braille Writer/Slate & Stylus
Cranmer Abacus
Dictation to Scribe
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test
Magnification Devices
Student Marks in Test Book
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor
Hospital/Home Testing
Multiple Test Sessions
Scheduled Extended Time
Testing in a Separate Room
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator
One Item per Page
Read Test Aloud to Self
Accommodation Notification Form
Number Tested1
(NCEXTEND2
OCS )
Percent2
(NCEXTEND2
OCS )
Number
At or
Above
Percent
At or
Above
Number
At
Percent
At
Number
At
Percent
At
Number
At
Percent
At
Number
At
Percent
At
Level III
Level III
Level I
Level I
Level II
Level II
Level III
Level III
Level IV
Level IV
361
224
138
221
167
21
275
11
3
11
4
0
15
17.2
10.7
6.6
10.5
8.0
1.0
13.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
0.7
140
79
59
78
74
*
120
3
*
6
*
*
7
38.8
35.3
42.8
35.3
44.3
<=5.0%
43.6
27.3
*
54.5
*
*
46.7
87
55
34
54
40
15
69
2
*
3
*
*
3
24.1
24.6
24.6
24.4
24.0
71.4
25.1
18.2
*
27.3
*
*
20.0
134
90
45
89
53
5
86
6
*
2
*
*
5
37.1
40.2
32.6
40.3
31.7
23.8
31.3
54.5
*
18.2
*
*
33.3
134
75
55
74
70
*
108
2
*
6
*
*
5
37.1
33.5
39.9
33.5
41.9
<=5.0%
39.3
18.2
*
54.5
*
*
33.3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
2
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
9.1
*
*
*
*
13.3
0
3
7
1
0
60
7
1
175
1,302
13
8
171
1,517
1,662
4
0
20
0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.3
0.0
8.3
62.0
0.6
0.4
8.1
72.3
79.2
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
*
*
1
*
*
4
*
*
54
403
3
2
43
503
547
*
*
12
*
*
*
14.3
*
*
6.7
*
*
30.9
31.0
23.1
25.0
25.1
33.2
32.9
*
*
60.0
*
*
*
2
*
*
31
6
*
72
469
5
5
64
524
587
*
*
2
*
*
*
28.6
*
*
51.7
85.7
*
41.1
36.0
38.5
62.5
37.4
34.5
35.3
*
*
10.0
*
*
*
4
*
*
25
1
*
49
430
5
1
64
490
528
*
*
6
*
*
*
57.1
*
*
41.7
14.3
*
28.0
33.0
38.5
12.5
37.4
32.3
31.8
*
*
30.0
*
*
*
1
*
*
4
*
*
49
375
3
2
39
467
508
*
*
8
*
*
*
14.3
*
*
6.7
*
*
28.0
28.8
23.1
25.0
22.8
30.8
30.6
*
*
40.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
4
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
20.0
*
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment NCEXTEND2
(
OCS ).
2
"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
*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 "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 16d. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2008-09
Performance of Exceptional, Limited English Proficient, Title I, and Economically Disadvantaged Students
Grade 10
Category
1
2
Number Tested
Percent
(NCEXTEND1 ) (NCEXTEND1 )
Number
At or
Above
Level III
Percent
At or
Above
Level III
Number
At
Level I
Percent
At
Level I
Number
At
Level II
Percent
At
Level II
Number
At
Level III
Percent
At
Level III
Number
At
Level IV
Percent
At
Level IV
28
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
AIG Reading
AIG Mathematics
Students with IEPS
690
223
467
15
15
285
39
7
329
413
684
6
0
0
18
0
0
0
690
100.0
32.3
67.7
2.2
2.2
41.3
5.7
1.0
47.7
59.9
99.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
286
95
191
4
7
129
16
2
128
182
284
2
*
*
8
*
*
*
286
41.4
42.6
40.9
26.7
46.7
45.3
41.0
28.6
38.9
44.1
41.5
33.3
*
*
44.4
*
*
*
41.4
107
32
75
2
3
41
9
1
51
61
106
1
*
*
3
*
*
*
107
15.5
14.3
16.1
13.3
20.0
14.4
23.1
14.3
15.5
14.8
15.5
16.7
*
*
16.7
*
*
*
15.5
297
96
201
9
5
115
14
4
150
170
294
3
*
*
7
*
*
*
297
43.0
43.0
43.0
60.0
33.3
40.4
35.9
57.1
45.6
41.2
43.0
50.0
*
*
38.9
*
*
*
43.0
264
86
178
4
7
121
14
1
117
167
262
2
*
*
7
*
*
*
264
38.3
38.6
38.1
26.7
46.7
42.5
35.9
14.3
35.6
40.4
38.3
33.3
*
*
38.9
*
*
*
38.3
*
*
*
*
*
*
2
1
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
<=5.0%
5.1
14.3
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
5.6
*
*
*
<=5.0%
Students with Disabilities3
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Miscoded
690
153
1
0
2
2
102
262
43
0
0
0
0
0
82
21
11
0
6
3
0
0
100.0
22.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
14.8
38.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.9
3.0
1.6
0.0
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
286
66
*
*
*
*
75
96
4
*
*
*
*
*
24
9
5
*
2
*
*
*
41.4
43.1
*
*
*
*
73.5
36.6
9.3
*
*
*
*
*
29.3
42.9
45.5
*
33.3
*
*
*
107
36
*
*
*
*
*
24
22
*
*
*
*
*
20
2
1
*
*
*
*
*
15.5
23.5
*
*
*
*
<=5%
9.2
51.2
*
*
*
*
*
24.4
9.5
9.1
*
*
*
*
*
297
51
*
*
*
*
25
142
17
*
*
*
*
*
38
10
5
*
4
*
*
*
43.0
33.3
*
*
*
*
24.5
54.2
39.5
*
*
*
*
*
46.3
47.6
45.5
*
66.7
*
*
*
264
62.0
*
*
*
*
69
87
4
*
*
*
*
*
22
9
5
*
2
*
*
*
38.3
40.5
*
*
*
*
67.6
33.2
9.3
*
*
*
*
*
26.8
42.9
45.5
*
33.3
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
6
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
5.9
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
<=5.0%
<=5.0%
*
*
*
*
*
*
1
Notes: "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.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*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 "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09
Average Score,
Grade 10
Category
29
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
AIG Reading
AIG Mathematics
Students with IEPs
Students with Disabilities
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
1
Number
Tested1
(General)
96,580
48,672
47,908
1,144
2,369
27,434
6,908
2,480
56,245
35,470
95,753
605
185
37
3,617
16,734
13,902
14,838
8,033
8,317
225
1
3
480
103
283
4
1
Average
Weighted
Percent2 Tested Average Total
Writing Score Content Score
(General)
100.0
50.4
49.6
1.2
2.5
28.4
7.2
2.6
58.2
36.7
99.1
0.6
0.2
0.0
3.7
17.3
14.4
15.4
8.3
8.6
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
12.0
12.4
11.5
10.8
12.9
10.9
11.0
12.2
12.6
10.9
12.0
10.0
12.9
9.3
9.6
14.1
14.2
14.2
9.4
9.5
10.4
*
*
8.7
9.7
7.4
*
*
8.6
8.9
8.3
7.8
9.5
7.9
8.0
8.8
9.0
7.9
8.6
7.3
9.2
7.2
7.2
10.2
10.3
10.3
7.0
7.1
7.4
*
*
6.4
7.1
5.9
*
*
Notes: "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.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Average
Conventions
Score
Number
Non-scorable
Percent
Non-scorable
3.3
3.5
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.0
2.9
3.4
3.5
3.0
3.3
2.7
3.7
2.0
2.3
3.9
3.9
3.9
2.3
2.3
2.8
*
*
2.1
2.4
1.4
*
*
164
43
121
2
5
52
26
2
77
86
164
0
0
0
23
4
4
5
52
52
4
*
*
9
2
4
*
0
0.2
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17a. (cont.) North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09
Average Score,
Grade 10
Category
30
Students with Disabilities (continued)
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Accommodations
Braille Edition
Large Print
Assistive Technology
Braille Writer/Slate & Stylus
Cramner Abacus
Dictation to Scribe
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test
Magnification Devices
Student Marks in Test Book
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor
Hospital/Home Testing
Multiple Test Sessions
Scheduled Extended Time
Testing in a Separate Room
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator
One Item per Page
Read Test Aloud to Self
Accommodation Notification Form
Number
Tested1
(General)
Average
Weighted
Percent2 Tested Average Total
Writing Score Content Score
(General)
Average
Conventions
Score
Number
Non-scorable
Percent
Non-scorable
4,606
1,570
857
1,924
935
6
1,985
57
180
26
27
284
4.8
1.6
0.9
2.0
1.0
0.0
2.1
0.1
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
9.4
9.1
9.1
9.1
9.2
7.2
9.6
10.5
10.8
9.7
10.8
11.4
7.1
7.0
6.9
7.0
6.9
4.0
7.1
7.9
7.9
7.3
7.8
8.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.9
2.4
3.0
3.2
21
8
5
10
6
1
8
1
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
24
54
1
0
88
13
5
363
2,518
149
20
515
6,547
4,979
852
0
82
1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.4
2.6
0.2
0.0
0.5
6.8
5.2
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.0
*
10.7
11.9
*
*
7.5
6.5
10.6
9.1
8.5
12.3
10.3
8.9
9.4
9.1
8.7
*
8.4
*
*
7.8
9.0
*
*
7.5
5.4
7.6
6.8
6.6
9.1
7.1
6.7
7.1
6.9
6.7
*
6.5
*
*
2.8
2.9
*
*
0.0
1.1
3.0
2.1
1.9
3.1
3.2
2.1
2.3
2.1
1.9
*
1.9
*
*
0
0
*
*
0
0
0
3
17
2
0
6
35
24
9
*
0
*
*
0.0
0.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
*
0.0
*
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.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCCLAS), 2008-09
Average Score,
Grade 10
Category
Number
Tested1
(NCCLAS)
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Academically/Intellectually Gifted
AIG Reading
AIG Mathematics
Students with IEPs
Students with Disabilities3
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Miscoded
230
84
146
0
47
26
101
5
51
146
230
0
0
0
169
0
0
0
58
58
3
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
39
0
0
36
0
0
12
1
0
0
0
0
3
Percent2
(NCCLAS)
Average Total
Writing Score
100.0
36.5
63.5
0.0
20.4
11.3
43.9
2.2
22.2
63.5
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
73.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
25.2
25.2
1.3
0.0
0.0
0.9
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
17.0
0.0
0.0
15.7
0.0
0.0
5.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.0
11.3
10.8
*
11.0
12.1
10.3
11.0
11.8
10.7
11.0
*
*
*
10.8
*
*
*
11.8
11.8
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
11.9
*
*
11.6
*
*
12.0
*
*
*
*
*
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.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, the NCCLAS is discontinued.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
31
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ), 2008-09
Average Score,
Grade 10
Category
32
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Students with IEPs
Students with Disabilities3
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Average
Number Tested1 Percent2 Tested
Weighted
(NCEXTEND2 (NCEXTEND2 Average Total
Writing Score Content Score
OCS )
OCS )
2,099
731
1,368
45
17
1,044
102
42
849
1,508
2,060
38
0
1
78
2,084
2,084
103
0
0
85
22
1,143
42
0
100.0
34.8
65.2
2.1
0.8
49.7
4.9
2.0
40.4
71.8
98.1
1.8
0.0
0.0
3.7
99.3
99.3
4.9
0.0
0.0
4.0
1.0
54.5
2.0
0.0
9.0
9.8
8.6
7.5
7.6
9.2
8.0
8.9
9.1
9.1
9.0
8.8
*
*
8.2
9.0
9.0
8.1
*
*
9.4
6.6
8.7
6.3
*
7.2
7.7
6.9
5.9
6.4
7.3
6.7
6.6
7.1
7.2
7.2
7.3
*
*
6.9
7.2
7.2
6.3
*
*
7.3
5.4
7.0
5.3
*
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ).
2
"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding.
Starting in 2007-08, the disability categories were revised.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Average
Conventions
Score
Number
Non-scorable
Percent
Non-scorable
1.7
2.1
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.4
*
*
1.2
1.7
1.7
1.6
*
*
1.9
1.0
1.6
0.9
*
34
3
31
2
0
16
1
2
13
23
34
0
*
*
1
34
34
3
*
*
2
1
18
1
*
1.6
0.1
1.5
0.1
0.0
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.6
1.1
1.6
0.0
*
*
0.0
1.6
1.6
0.1
*
*
0.1
0.0
0.9
0.0
*
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17c. (cont.) North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ), 2008-09
Average Score,
Grade 10
Category
33
Students with Disabilities (continued)
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Miscoded
Accommodations
Braille Edition
Large Print
Assistive Technology
Braille Writer/Slate & Stylus
Cramner Abacus
Dictation to Scribe
Interpreter Signs/Cues Test
Magnification Devices
Student Marks in Test Book
Test Administrator Reads Test Aloud
Use Of Typewriter or Word Processor
Hospital/Home Testing
Multiple Test Sessions
Scheduled Extended Time
Testing in a Separate Room
English/Native Lang. Dictionary/Electronic Translator
One Item per Page
Read Test Aloud to Self
Accommodation Notification Form
1
Average
Number Tested1 Percent2 Tested
Weighted
(NCEXTEND2 (NCEXTEND2 Average Total
Writing Score Content Score
OCS )
OCS )
Average
Conventions
Score
Number
Non-scorable
Percent
Non-scorable
361
224
138
221
167
21
275
11
3
11
4
0
15
17.2
10.7
6.6
10.5
8.0
1.0
13.1
0.5
0.1
0.5
0.2
0.0
9.9
9.7
10.2
9.9
10.2
5.6
10.0
9.5
*
10.5
*
*
7.8
7.7
8.1
7.6
8.0
5.0
7.8
8.4
*
8.2
*
*
1.9
1.9
2.1
1.9
2.2
0.5
2.2
1.2
*
2.4
*
*
7
2
0
9
1
0
2
0
*
0
*
*
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
*
0.0
*
*
0
3
7
1
0
60
7
1
175
1,302
13
8
171
1,517
1,662
4
0
20
0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.0
0.0
2.9
0.3
0.0
8.3
62.0
0.6
0.4
8.1
72.3
79.2
0.2
0.0
1.0
0.0
*
*
8.9
*
*
6.5
4.7
*
8.5
8.8
8.3
7.0
8.5
9.1
9.0
*
*
12.2
*
*
*
7.4
*
*
6.5
3.7
*
6.8
7.0
6.6
6.0
6.8
7.2
7.2
*
*
9.6
*
*
*
1.4
*
*
0.0
0.3
*
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.5
1.7
1.7
*
*
2.6
*
*
*
0
*
*
0
1
*
3
16
0
0
5
18
22
*
*
0
*
*
*
0.0
*
*
0.0
0.0
*
0.1
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.9
1.0
*
*
0.0
*
Notes: "Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND2 OCS ).
2
"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "Students with Disabilities" includes Section 504. Some categories may not add up to the total due to missing coding
Starting in 2007-08, the disability categories were revised.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17d. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessment (NCEXTEND1 ), 2008-09
Average Score,
Grade 10
Category
All Students
Female
Male
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial/Other
White
Economically Disadvantaged
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Limited English Proficient (LEP)
Students with IEPs
3
Students with Disabilities
Autism
Deaf-Blindness
Deafness
Serious Emotional Disability
Hearing Impairment
Intellectual Disability-Mild
Intellectual Disability-Moderate
Intellectual Disability-Severe
Specific Learning Disability
Learning Disabled-Reading
Learning Disabled-Mathematics
Learning Disabled-Writing
Learning Disabled-Other
Multiple Disabiliities
Other Health Impairment
Orthopedic Impairment
Speech or Language Impairment
Traumatic Brain Injury
Visual Impairment incl. Blindness
Section 504
Miscoded
Average Total
Number Tested1
Percent2
(NCEXTEND1 ) (NCEXTEND1 ) Writing Score
690
223
467
15
15
285
39
7
329
413
684
6
0
0
18
690
690
153
1
0
2
2
102
262
43
0
0
0
0
0
82
21
11
0
6
3
0
0
100.0
32.3
67.7
2.2
2.2
41.3
5.7
1.0
47.7
59.9
99.1
0.9
0.0
0.0
2.6
100.0
100.0
22.2
0.1
0.0
0.3
0.3
14.8
38.0
6.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.9
3.0
1.6
0.0
0.9
0.4
0.0
0.0
5.2
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.9
5.5
5.1
5.6
5.1
5.5
5.3
4.0
*
*
5.3
5.2
5.2
4.9
*
*
*
*
7.6
5.3
2.2
*
*
*
*
*
4.3
5.5
5.1
*
5.2
*
*
*
Notes: 1"Number Tested" is the number of students who participated in the NCEXTEND1 Test of Writing.
2
"Percent" is calculated based on the number tested in the "All Students" category.
3
Some students were miscoded as "not exceptional" in source data.
*Performance data are not reported when number tested is fewer than five.
The total for "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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
34
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 18a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 10
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS TESTED
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS WITH
VALID SCORES
20
LOW SCORE
4
PERCENTILES
TOTAL
SCORE
96,580
96,416
90
75
50 (median)
25
10
12.0
MEAN
HIGH SCORE
STANDARD
DEVIATION
3.0
VARIANCE
9.2
16
14
12
10
8
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
ACH
LEVEL
WRITING
SCORE
FREQUENCY
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
CUMULATIVE
PERCENT
IV
20
19
18
17
558
2
2,001
14
96,580
96,022
96,020
94,019
0.6
0.0
2.1
0.0
100.0
99.4
99.4
97.3
III
16
15
14
13
12
12,375
451
15,091
2,909
35,972
94,005
81,630
81,179
66,088
63,179
12.8
0.5
15.6
3.0
37.2
97.3
84.5
84.1
68.4
65.4
II
11
10
9
8
1,032
10,860
3,311
2,820
27,207
26,175
15,315
12,004
1.1
11.2
3.4
2.9
28.2
27.1
15.9
12.4
I
7
6
5
4
NS
1,808
3,000
1,875
2,337
164
9,184
7,376
4,376
2,501
164
1.9
3.1
1.9
2.4
0.2
9.5
7.6
4.5
2.6
0.2
Notes: Students with level scores reported but no total score reported are not included in this table.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
35
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 18b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Checklist of Academic Standards (NCCLAS) for Writing, 2008-09,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 10
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS TESTED
MEAN
HIGH SCORE
16
LOW SCORE
4
230
11.0
STANDARD
DEVIATION
2.6
VARIANCE
6.7
PERCENTILES
90
75
50 (median)
25
10
TOTAL
SCORE
12.5
12
12
10
7
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
ACH
LEVEL
WRITING
SCORE
FREQUENCY
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
CUMULATIVE
PERCENT
IV
16
15
14
8
5
8
230
222
217
3.5
2.2
3.5
100.0
96.5
94.3
III
13
12
11
10
2
136
8
10
209
207
71
63
0.9
59.1
3.5
4.3
90.9
90.0
30.9
27.4
II
9
8
7
6
20
8
53
47
27
2.6
8.7
3.5
23.0
20.4
11.7
I
6
5
4
9
1
9
19
10
9
3.9
0.4
3.9
8.3
4.3
3.9
Notes: The range used for the NCCLAS for Writing assessment is different from the range used for the
North Carolina General Writing Assessment. Beginning in the 2009-10 school year, the NCCLAS is discontinued.
Students with level scores reported but no total score reported are not included in this table.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
36
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 18c. North Carolina Testing Program
NCEXTEND 2 OCS Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 10
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS TESTED
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS WITH
VALID SCORES
20
LOW SCORE
4
PERCENTILES
TOTAL
SCORE
2,099
2,065
90
75
50 (median)
25
10
9.0
MEAN
HIGH SCORE
STANDARD
DEVIATION
4.0
VARIANCE
16.2
14
12
10
4
4
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
ACH
LEVEL
WRITING
SCORE
FREQUENCY
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
CUMULATIVE
PERCENT
IV
20
19
18
17
17
1
18
12
2,099
2,082
2,081
2,063
0.8
0.0
0.9
0.6
100.0
99.2
99.1
98.3
III
16
15
14
13
12
96
28
144
61
312
2,051
1,955
1,927
1,783
1,722
4.6
1.3
6.9
2.9
14.9
97.7
93.1
91.8
84.9
82.0
II
11
10
9
8
7
5
366
100
131
72
1,410
1,405
1,039
939
808
0.2
17.4
4.8
6.2
3.4
67.2
66.9
49.5
44.7
38.5
I
6
5
4
NS
100
80
522
34
736
636
556
34
4.8
3.8
24.9
1.6
35.1
30.3
26.5
1.6
Notes: The range used for the NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment is different from the range used for
the North Carolina General Writing Assessment.
Students with level scores reported but no total score reported are not included in this table
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section
37
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 18d. North Carolina Testing Program
NCEXTEND 1 Test of Writing, 2008-09,
Distribution of Total Scores,
Grade 10
NUMBER OF
STUDENTS TESTED
690
MEAN
5.2
STANDARD
DEVIATION
3.6
VARIANCE
12.9
HIGH SCORE
13
LOW SCORE
0
PERCENTILES
TOTAL
SCORE
90
75
50 (median)
25
10
11
9
5
2
0
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
ACH
LEVEL
WRITING
SCORE
FREQUENCY
CUMULATIVE
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
CUMULATIVE
PERCENT
IV
13
22
690
3.2
100.0
III
11
10
9
8
7
6
55
9
88
16
70
26
668
613
604
516
500
430
8.0
1.3
12.8
2.3
10.1
3.8
96.8
88.8
87.5
74.8
72.5
62.3
II
5
4
3
2
84
61
81
71
404
320
259
178
12.2
8.8
11.7
10.3
58.6
46.4
37.5
25.8
I
1
0
23
84
107
84
3.3
12.2
15.5
12.2
Notes: The range used for the NCEXTEND 1 Test of Writing assessment is different from the range used for
the North Carolina General Writing Assessment.
Students with level scores reported but no total score reported are not included in this table.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
38
2008-09
North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Grade 10
Copies of Grade 10
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 scale 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 10. The total content score, total conventions score, total writing
score, Achievement Level, and annotated explanations of the scores are provided for each
response.
39
[This page intentionally blank]
40
2009 North Carolina Testing Program Writing,
Grade 10 Do Not Reproduce—NCDPI
Write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in which you examine the effects of cell phone use on everyday life.
You may use the following information, your own experiences, observations, and/or readings.
As you write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper in which you examine the effects of cell phone use on everyday life,
remember to:
❑ Focus on the effects of cell phone use on everyday life.
❑ Consider the purpose, audience, and context of your letter.
❑ Organize your letter so that your ideas progress logically.
❑ Include relevant details that clearly develop your letter.
❑ Edit your letter for standard grammar and language usage.
Use the blank sheet of paper given to you by your teacher to plan your letter. Anything you write on the blank sheet will not be
scored. You must write the final copy of your letter on pages 3 and 4 of your test booklet. Write the final copy of your letter on
pages 3 and 4 of your test booklet.
© 2009 All rights reserved. This document may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of the North Carolina Department of Public
Instruction, Raleigh, N.C.
41
42
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #1
Rubric Content Score: 1
Total Content Score: 4
Total Writing Score: 4
Rubric Convention Score: 0
Total Conventions Score: 0
Achievement Level: I
Content Annotation:
The topic of this minimal response is unclear. The organizational structure fails to establish connections between
ideas. The response attempts to incorporate cited material from the prompt (Like if some one was at a restaurant and
they cant help but to answer it when they can just let it ring and go straight to voicemail.), but fails to do much more
than restate the ideas given in the prompt quotes. The response is confusing, and the repetitive ideas are presented in a
random, unclear fashion (Even while driving when stopped at a red light they like to take out their cell phone call or
text some one to see if how is that person doing or get the latest gossip on a story. Like if some one was at a
restaurant and they cant help but to answer it when they can just let it ring and go straight to voicemail. You know
when some one is addicted to their cell phone right when it is about to ring they know to get it out of their purse or
pocket to answer it or if they take it wherever the go no matter what). The response lacks use of vocabulary that is
precise and purposeful. While the response exhibits some attempted sentences of different structures and lengths,
sentence fluency is not demonstrated.
Conventions Annotation:
The response exhibits a lack of control of grammatical conventions. Within the small amount of writing, there are
numerous sentence formation errors, including a comma-splice, a fragment, and many run-ons. The response also has
a variety of errors in usage (see if how is that person doing, ) and mechanics (every instead of very, its instead of it's).
The response exhibits a lack of control of conventions.
43
44
45
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #2
Rubric Content Score: 2
Total Content Score: 8
Total Writing Score: 10
Rubric Convention Score: 1
Total Conventions Score: 2
Achievement Level: II
Content Annotation:
The topic of this response is focused on the positive and negative effects of cell phones (. . . some think that cell
phones are both a good and a bad peice of technology). Some organizational structure is present but little relationship
is established between ideas, leading to major lapses in the logical progression of ideas (Cell phones can help teens in
trouble because they can contact a person who is able to help them in there emergancy. Personally I think that ever
since cell phones have been produced that death rates and crime have dropped in big percentages). Support and
elaboration consist of general details that are undeveloped (And finally another bad thing about cell phones is that
they get you in alot of trouble at school, like getting your cell phone takin or getting wrote up for having them out in
class. I think that ever since cell phones, the schools overall grades have dropped a little because every body is
worried about texting there buddy in class), exhibiting major weaknesses. The response displays minimal use of
precise and purposeful vocabulary and minimal sentence fluency.
Conventions Annotation:
This response demonstrates minimal control of grammatical conventions. Errors are present in punctuation (Secondly
cell phones can cause . . . the schools overall grades . . . who do you know that dosent have a cell phone) and usage
(Here are some of thoughts above explained out . . . they can contact a person who is able to help them in there
emergancy . . . like getting your cell phone takin or getting wrote up). Some spelling errors also occur (peice, alot ,
emergancy, populer, sinceraly).
46
47
48
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #3
Rubric Content Score: 2
Total Content Score: 8
Total Writing Score: 12
Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Conventions Score: 4
Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
The topic of this response is somewhat vague (Cells phones have been a tool to help many and hurt some). There is an
attempt to organize the paper around the positive and negative effects of cell phone use, but major lapses occur in the
logical progression of ideas (You could meet up with someone to talk and catch up. When cell phones were invented,
people were able to become more impersonal by just calling someone instead. Even though cell phones are a huge
convience, they have caused many issues and costs that were not faced before). Support and elaboration is general and
repetitive, and the few details offered are underdeveloped (People find every place and time possible to talk on their
phones. In the supermarket, in their rooms, or the most common, in their cars. . . . Sometimes the need to get more
done in life has made people feel that they need to do two things at once. They try to multitask and use their phones
while doing something else). The response exhibits minimal use of both vocabulary that is precise and purposeful and
minimal sentence fluency.
Conventions Annotation:
While some errors are present, this response exhibits reasonable control of grammatical conventions. Errors include
a few examples of spelling errors (everyday for every day . . . . looses for loses . . . . consitanly for constantly) and
usage (Cellphones being used while people are driving have known to cause many accidents and sometimes death).
49
50
51
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #4
Rubric Content Score: 3
Total Content Score: 12
Total Writing Score: 16
Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Conventions Score: 4
Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
The topic of this response is generally clear, although not explicitly stated until the last paragraph
(. . . cell phones can be great for emergencies, but terrible when it comes to cell phone addiction, and distraction on
the road). The organizational structure establishes relationships, and ideas progress logically (Even though my mom
was fortunate to have a cell phone with her, this device was also the culprit behind the wreck. For the man who hit my
mom, hit her because he was talking on the cell phone, and not paying attention to the road), although a minor
weakness occurs in the second paragraph as the student attempts to integrate and support quoted material. Specific
details are used to provide support and elaboration of the ideas (Despite the downside to cell phone use, there is a time
and place, when you really need a cell phone. I was walking my dogs and come across an injured doe on the side of
the road. Instinctively, I reached for my cell phone, only to realize it was not there). The response demonstrates
reasonable use of precise vocabulary and sentence fluency.
Conventions Annotation:
The response displays reasonable control of sentence formation, word usage, and mechanics. Much of the writing is
correct, but a few errors occur in capitalization, punctuation (So I ran down to someones house, to get my parents
on the phone), and spelling (convinient, focousing, litterally).
52
53
54
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #5
Rubric Content Score: 4
Total Content Score: 16
Total Writing Score: 20
Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Conventions Score: 4
Achievement Level: IV
Content Annotation:
This response develops a clear topic (. . . cell phones are changing the way the world interacts, making it a
technological interaction as opposed to a personal one). Focus on this topic is maintained throughout the response,
and ideas are related with an effective organizational structure. A logical progression of ideas makes the response
unified and complete (Communication with people far away, such as relatives or grown family members has become
more technologically focused. On one hand, this is a good thing, but on the other, it means less motivation to meet in
person. Where is the desire for the ten-year family reunion to see how much the kids have grown when one can just
send a picture message to family and friends?). The response consists of specific, developed details that are strongly
related to the prompt .The response exhibits skillful use of precise and purposeful vocabulary (This distortion of
priorities makes the obsessive and excessive use of cell phones in everyday life seem like a normal, logical thing) and
demonstrates sentence fluency.
Conventions Annotation:
The response demonstrates reasonable control of sentence formation, word usage, and mechanics. A few
minor errors in comma use are present.
55
[This page intentionally blank]
56
2008-09
NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment
at Grade 10
Copies of Grade 10
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 scale 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 NCEXTEND2 OCS
Writing Assessment at grade 10. The total content score, total conventions score, total writing
score, Achievement Level, and annotated explanations of the scores are provided for each
response.
57
[This page intentionally blank]
58
Think about the one person who has helped you the most. Write a journal entry telling about that person
and how that person helped you.
As you write a journal entry telling about that person and how that person helped you, remember to:
❑ Explain how the person has helped you.
❑ Organize your ideas.
❑ Write your journal entry so it makes sense.
❑ Use important details.
❑ Review and correct your journal entry for capitalization, punctuation, and spelling.
Use the blank sheet of paper given to you by your teacher to plan your journal entry. Anything you write
on the blank sheet will not be scored. You must write the final copy of your journal entry on pages 3 and 4
of your test booklet.
Write the final copy of your journal entry on pages 3 and 4 of your test booklet.
2009 All rights reserved. This
document may not be reproduced by any means, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Raleigh, N.C.
59
60
Grade 10-North Carolina NCEXTEND2 OCS Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #1
Rubric Content Score: 1
Total Content Score: 4
Total Writing Score: 4
Rubric Convention Score: 0
Total Conventions Score: 0
Achievement Level: I
Content Annotation:
The topic of this response is unclear (The person who has helped me the most in my life is G--- .This person is
my mom), and the organizational structure fails to establish connections between ideas (tike the time my bog
brke the charin my mom she ran Around the home my run for six hours I whe at school). Although there is an
attempt to support the topic, the sparse details are unrelated and confusing (She buy me cloths for School
Sometime will fuss and fit butt I Love my mom). The best-fit content score for this response is a 1.
Conventions Annotation:
This brief response lacks control of grammatical conventions appropriate to the writing task; errors in
sentence formation, standard usage, and mechanics are dense, varied, and severe.
61
62
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #2
Rubric Content Score: 2
Total Content Score: 8
Total Writing Score: 10
Rubric Convention Score: 1
Total Conventions Score: 2
Achievement Level: II
Content Annotation:
This response focuses on the many ways in which the writer’s dad “has helped me the most,” but the list-like
organizational structure establishes little relationship between and among events (Another reason is because he
has taken me places like to church and to my friends house. Also he has took me to get something to eat). These
unrelated, undeveloped details create major lapses in the logical progression of ideas (Also he has took me to
the Franklin Fun factory . . . . He has also made sure that i had food on my table. And that i had a place to
sleep, and clothes on). Overall, the best-fit content score for this response is a 2.
Conventions Annotation:
This essay displays minimal control of grammatical conventions, with sentence fragments and errors in
usage, punctuation, and capitalization.
63
64
65
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #3
Rubric Content Score: 2
Total Content Score: 8
Total Writing Score: 12
Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Conventions Score: 4
Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
This response focuses on the ways that “my mom has been helping me ever sents I was little and now.”
Although the organizational structure establishes little relationship between and among ideas and events, the
writer does provide general support for some of the events (When I was reading a book and if I didn’t know a
word she always help me with it. You know just last year I got hrut in football and yeah I got k.o. but whan I
open my eyes my mom was right there helping me all the way intell I got to the hostel. . . . And I have to say if
she didn’t help me I don’t know who would but I hope that she don’t stop helping me). The best-fit score for this
response is a 2.
Conventions Annotation:
Even with a few sentence and spelling errors, this response shows reasonable control of grammatical
conventions.
66
67
68
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #4
Rubric Content Score: 3
Total Content Score: 12
Total Writing Score: 16
Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Conventions Score: 4
Achievement Level: III
Content Annotation:
This response maintains generally clear focus on the ways in which the writer’s grandmother “has helped me
the most.” The organizational structure establishes relationships between and among ideas and events that result
in a reasonably complete, logical progression of ideas (My grandmother wants me to make it out of high school
and beable to go to college and she wants to see me graduate from college and wants me to make something out
of myself so I wouldn’t have to depend on no man or anyone. She want me to be independent). Lapses in
progression of ideas are minor (My grandmother L--- is the one person who has helped me to accomplish thing
and she helped, me to deal with my problems I had with other people). The best-fit content score for this
response is a 3.
Conventions Annotation:
With only occasional errors in sentence formation and usage, this response shows reasonable control of
grammatical conventions.
69
70
71
Grade 10-North Carolina General Writing Assessment - Sample Student Response #5
Rubric Content Score: 4
Total Content Score: 16
Total Writing Score: 20
Rubric Convention Score: 2
Total Conventions Score: 4
Achievement Level: IV
Content Annotation:
This response maintains clear focus on its topic as it uses specific, related details to show how the writer’s
friend helped him pass his math course and, in the process, they became “best friends forever.” An extended
personal example provides a logical progression of ideas that is complete (We was at school and we had got our
report cards. I was passing every thing but Math. . . . I asked J--- if he could help me understand my math
better. . . . Every day after school we would meet at this old sub place in town. He would help me with my class
work and Home work. . . . I would buy J--- and me something to eat while he was helping me. . . . At the end of
the school year we got our Report cards. I opend mine and saw that I had passed all of my classes . . . and I
thanked him for helping me with my math). The best-fit content score for this response is a 4.
Conventions Annotation:
Although there are occasional usage and spelling errors, this response displays reasonable control of
grammatical conventions.
72
2008-09
North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Grade 10
Regional by LEA Performance
Tables 19a through 19l 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.
73
[This page intentionally blank]
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 17. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III, by LEA,
Grade 10
State
2008, 2009 State
2000 State
1999 State
2001 State
2004, 2006 State
2007 State
1997 State
1996 State
2005 State
1998 State
2003 State
1995 State
1994 State
1993 State
Notes:
Percent†
*
…
92
91
90
89
88
…
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
…
59
58
57
…
55
54
53
…
51
50
49
48
47
46
45
44
…
42
…
40
39
…
33
…
27
…
25
…
20
2009 LEA Performance
Gray Stone Day**, The Hawbridge School**, Woods Charter**, Raleigh Charter HS**, Gaston College Prep**, Lake Norman**
Roxboro Community**
Lincoln Charter**
Thomas Jefferson**
Franklin Academy**
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Watauga
Elkin City, Pender, Rocky Mount Prep Sch**
Ashe, Cabarrus, Pine Lake Prep**
Henderson, Quality Education**, Roanoke Rapids City
Clover Garden**, East Wake Academy**, Queen's Grant**, River Mill Academy**
Avery, Camden, Wake
Haywood, Lincoln, Mooresville City
Clay, Newton-Conover City, Union Academy**, Winston-Salem/Forsyth
Brunswick
Asheville City, Burke, Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Moore, Polk, Union
Carteret, Catawba, Cleveland, Clinton City, Dare, Mount Airy City, Stokes
Alexander, Haliwa-Saponi Tribal**, Iredell-Statesville, Johnston, Onslow, Orange, Whiteville City
Cherokee County, Franklin, Hoke, Person
Transylvania, Wilkes
Alamance-Burlington, Chatham, Perquimans, Piedmont Community**
Graham, Hyde, Jackson, Rockingham
Buncombe, Davie, Guilford, Harnett, Kannapolis City, Mitchell, Swain
Caldwell, Cumberland, Davidson, Hickory City, Randolph, Rowan-Salisbury
Gaston, Gates, Tyrrell
New Hanover, Surry, Wilson
Craven, Granville, Jones, Montgomery, Rutherford, Stanly
Carolina International**, Currituck, Wayne
Durham, Elizabeth City/Pasquotank, Richmond, Scotland, Yancey
Asheboro City, Columbus, Duplin, Madison, Pitt
Cape Lookout Marine**, Kestrel Heights**, Lee, Lenoir, Macon, Nash-Rocky Mount, Pamlico
Caswell, McDowell, Vance, Yadkin
Alleghany
Beaufort, Bladen, Edenton/Chowan, Sampson
Community Partners High**, Lexington City
Anson
Hertford, Northampton, Thomasville City, Washington
Edgecombe, Martin
Warren
Greene
C.G. Woodson**
Robeson
Halifax
Weldon City
Crossroads Charter**
Bertie
Crossnore Academy**
Pace Academy**
Provisions Academy**
Kennedy Charter**
†
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
75
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 18. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Average Total Writing Score, by LEA,
Grade 10
State
Mean Score†
14.7
…
14.1
14.0
13.9
13.7
13.5
13.3
13.1
13.0
12.9
12.7
12.5
2009 State
2008 State
12.3
12.1
12.0
11.9
11.7
11.5
11.3
2004 State
2006 State
2003, 2007 State
2005 State
11.1
11.0
10.9
10.7
10.5
10.3
…
10.0
9.9
9.7
…
9.0
8.9
…
8.5
7.9
2009 LEA Performance
Gray Stone Day**, Raleigh Charter HS**
Woods Charter**
The Hawbridge School**
Lake Norman**
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City, Gaston College Prep**, Watauga
Elkin City, Franklin Academy**, Thomas Jefferson**
Ashe, Cabarrus, Clay, Pender
Avery
Roxboro Community**
Henderson, Moore, Quality Education**, River Mill Academy**, Wake, Winston-Salem/Forsyth
Brunswick, Burke, Carolina International**, East Wake Academy**, Lincoln, Mount Airy City, Pine Lake Prep**,
Roanoke Rapids City
Asheville City, Camden, Charlotte/Mecklenburg, Clover Garden**, Haywood, Lincoln Charter**
Newton-Conover City, Queen's Grant**, Rocky Mount Prep Sch**
Carteret, Cleveland, Graham, Hoke, Jackson, Mooresville City, Polk, Union
Catawba, Dare, Johnston, Orange, Piedmont Community**, Union Academy**, Whiteville City, Wilkes
Alamance-Burlington, Clinton City, Iredell-Statesville, Mitchell, Stokes
Buncombe, Cherokee County, Cumberland, Franklin, Guilford, Hickory City, Onslow, Perquimans, Person, Surry,
Transylvania, Tyrrell
Alexander, Caldwell, Chatham, Craven, Davidson, Davie, Gaston, Gates, Harnett, Jones, Kannapolis City,
Montgomery, New Hanover, Randolph, Richmond, Swain
Duplin, Haliwa-Saponi Tribal**, Hyde, Madison, Rockingham, Rowan-Salisbury, Rutherford, Stanly
Asheboro City, Cape Lookout Marine**, Columbus, Currituck, Durham, Granville, Lenoir, Vance, Wayne, Wilson,
Yancey
Kestrel Heights**, Lee, Pitt, Scotland, Yadkin
Alleghany, Caswell, Community Partners High**, Lexington City, McDowell, Thomasville City
Beaufort, Elizabeth City/Pasquotank, Macon, Pamlico
Anson, Bladen, C.G. Woodson**, Hertford, Martin, Nash-Rocky Mount, Northampton, Sampson, Washington
Edenton/Chowan, Warren
Edgecombe
Crossroads Charter**, Greene, Robeson
Halifax
Bertie, Weldon City
Crossnore Academy**
Pace Academy**
Provisions Academy**
Kennedy Charter**
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
76
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
xxx
Table 19a. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA and Ethnicity
Western Region
Total
American Indian
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
State
Western Region
96,580
6,588
71.8
71.9
1,144
84
Buncombe
Asian
Black
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
57.2
72.6
2,369
64
Hispanic
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
79.1
78.1
27,434
387
Multi-Racial
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
58.0
52.7
6,908
327
White
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
58.0
48.3
2,480
156
75.3
72.4
56,245
5,570
80.1
74.6
77
1,808
70.1
6
83.3
24
66.7
113
53.1
91
47.3
54
74.1
1,520
72.6
Asheville City
267
77.2
1
*
4
*
85
56.5
13
69.2
15
86.7
149
87.9
Cherokee County
263
74.1
4
*
2
*
6
83.3
8
62.5
4
*
239
74.5
Clay
90
78.9
0
*
1
*
0
*
2
*
0
*
87
79.3
Graham
87
71.3
8
75.0
0
*
0
*
1
*
1
*
77
70.1
Haywood
506
80.2
6
83.3
1
*
5
80.0
13
53.8
11
45.5
470
81.7
Henderson
858
83.0
1
*
10
90.0
36
58.3
83
59.0
29
86.2
699
86.8
Jackson
231
71.4
27
66.7
1
*
0
*
13
15.4
0
*
190
75.8
Macon
308
62.0
1
*
1
*
1
*
19
26.3
2
*
284
65.1
Madison
153
63.4
0
*
1
*
0
*
5
20.0
1
*
146
64.4
McDowell
425
60.5
2
*
7
85.7
16
43.8
24
33.3
8
50.0
368
62.8
Mitchell
141
70.2
0
*
1
*
2
*
4
*
0
*
134
72.4
Polk
165
77.0
0
*
1
*
15
53.3
5
80.0
4
*
140
80.0
Rutherford
662
66.2
1
*
2
*
95
43.2
28
39.3
16
62.5
520
71.7
Swain
127
70.1
27
74.1
2
*
0
*
5
80.0
0
*
93
67.7
Transylvania
259
73.4
0
*
2
*
9
55.6
6
50.0
9
77.8
233
74.7
Yancey
Thomas Jefferson**
178
60
64.0
90.0
0
0
*
*
4
0
*
*
2
2
*
*
5
2
60.0
*
2
0
*
*
165
56
63.6
89.3
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
The ethnic categories may not sum to total number tested because ethnic category may not have been coded on some student answer sheet
**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 12, 2009 are not included in this table
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19b. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Western Region
Total
Female
Served by Title I
Male
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Program
Migrant
Targeted Assistance
78
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
Western Region
96,580
6,588
71.8
71.9
1,144
3,340
57.2
79.8
2,369
3,248
79.1
63.9
27,434
9
58.0
77.8
6,908
6,579
58.0
71.9
2,480
7
75.3
71.4
56,245
0
80.1
*
37
2
37.8
*
Buncombe
Asheville City
Cherokee County
Clay
Graham
Haywood
Henderson
Jackson
Macon
Madison
1,808
267
263
90
87
506
858
231
308
153
70.1
77.2
74.1
78.9
71.3
80.2
83.0
71.4
62.0
63.4
910
141
144
48
41
247
433
117
170
76
75.8
80.9
80.6
93.8
80.5
85.4
88.9
80.3
74.1
75.0
898
126
119
42
46
259
425
114
138
77
64.3
73.0
66.4
61.9
63.0
75.3
76.9
62.3
47.1
51.9
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
7
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
71.4
*
1,808
267
263
90
87
506
856
231
301
153
70.1
77.2
74.1
78.9
71.3
80.2
82.9
71.4
61.8
63.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
71.4
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
425
141
165
662
127
259
178
60
60.5
70.2
77.0
66.2
70.1
73.4
64.0
90.0
230
63
77
326
67
142
78
30
69.6
79.4
83.1
77.9
83.6
87.3
73.1
93.3
195
78
88
336
60
117
100
30
49.7
62.8
71.6
54.8
55.0
56.4
57.0
86.7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
425
141
165
662
127
259
178
60
60.5
70.2
77.0
66.2
70.1
73.4
64.0
90.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
McDowell
Mitchell
Polk
Rutherford
Swain
Transylvania
Yancey
Thomas Jefferson**
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19c. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA and Ethnicity
Northwest Region
Total
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
American Indian
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Asian
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Black
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Hispanic
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Multi-Racial
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
White
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
79
State
96,580
71.8
1,141
57.1
2,367
79.1
27,420
58.0
6,904
58.0
2,478
75.3
56,249
Northwest Region
14,960
74.3
36
69.4
424
76.2
2,153
60.2
1,083
57.4
355
73.5
10,909
Alexander
372
74.5
0
*
11
63.6
20
55.0
15
66.7
2
*
324
Alleghany
116
58.6
0
*
1
*
3
*
15
46.7
4
*
93
Ashe
221
84.2
1
*
0
*
0
*
14
57.1
4
*
202
Avery
143
81.1
1
*
0
*
0
*
3
*
0
*
139
Burke
984
77.3
2
*
105
79.0
53
62.3
56
78.6
27
81.5
741
Caldwell
932
69.2
0
*
8
75.0
65
52.3
48
45.8
19
78.9
792
Catawba
1,279
75.8
3
*
107
72.9
89
55.1
97
60.8
39
79.5
944
Hickory City
274
69.3
1
*
10
80.0
73
46.6
22
59.1
13
61.5
155
Newton-Conover City
203
78.8
0
*
8
75.0
33
66.7
24
75.0
7
>=95.0%
131
Davidson
1,470
69.2
3
*
20
65.0
59
57.6
53
56.6
15
66.7
1,320
Lexington City
164
56.7
2
*
12
66.7
69
42.0
31
51.6
9
66.7
41
Thomasville City
164
53.7
2
*
2
*
80
43.8
32
53.1
9
55.6
39
Davie
438
69.9
0
*
1
*
46
52.2
32
46.9
12
58.3
347
Winston-Salem/Forsyth
3,337
79.0
11
63.6
70
88.6
1,143
66.0
307
59.9
106
80.2
1,700
Iredell-Statesville
1,548
75.3
2
*
41
80.5
207
51.2
98
61.2
31
64.5
1,169
Mooresville City
401
79.6
3
*
7
42.9
69
66.7
17
64.7
3
*
302
Stokes
497
76.3
1
*
2
*
20
50.0
13
46.2
11
63.6
450
Surry
629
67.2
0
*
6
66.7
21
61.9
70
55.7
3
*
529
Elkin City
94
85.1
0
*
0
*
7
71.4
8
87.5
0
*
79
Mount Airy City
116
75.9
0
*
5
20.0
13
46.2
15
53.3
4
*
79
Watauga
319
86.2
1
*
4
*
4
*
7
71.4
11
90.9
292
Wilkes
692
73.4
1
*
2
*
40
62.5
42
38.1
12
58.3
595
Yadkin
466
61.2
1
*
2
*
15
40.0
57
36.8
13
53.8
378
Crossnore Academy**
12
33.3
0
*
0
*
0
*
1
*
1
*
10
Quality Education**
12
83.3
0
*
0
*
12
83.3
0
*
0
*
0
C.G. Woodson**
15
46.7
0
*
0
*
12
41.7
3
*
0
*
0
Pine Lake Prep**
62
83.9
1
*
0
*
0
*
3
*
0
*
58
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
80.1
78.7
76.2
60.2
86.6
82.0
77.9
71.7
79.4
81.3
81.7
70.3
78.0
69.2
74.6
90.9
80.9
84.1
78.7
68.8
86.1
89.9
86.3
77.0
66.1
40.0
*
*
86.2
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19d. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Northwest Region
Total
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Female
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Male
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Served by Title I
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Not Served by Title I
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Schoolwide Title I
Program
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
Targeted Assistance
Percent At or
Number Above Level
III
Tested
80
State
96,580
71.8
1,144
57.2
2,369
79.1
27,434
58.0
6,908
58.0
2,480
75.3
56,245
Northwest Region
14,960
74.3
7,429
80.1
7,531
68.5
150
45.3
14,810
74.6
147
45.6
0
Alexander
372
74.5
170
78.8
202
70.8
0
*
372
74.5
0
*
0
Alleghany
116
58.6
52
69.2
64
50.0
0
*
116
58.6
0
*
0
Ashe
221
84.2
102
>=95.0%
119
74.8
1
*
220
84.1
0
*
0
Avery
143
81.1
76
88.2
67
73.1
0
*
143
81.1
0
*
0
Burke
984
77.3
499
81.0
485
73.6
0
*
984
77.3
0
*
0
Caldwell
932
69.2
470
77.0
462
61.3
14
14.3
918
70.0
14
14.3
0
Catawba
1,279
75.8
638
80.1
641
71.6
0
*
1,279
75.8
0
*
0
Hickory City
274
69.3
135
70.4
139
68.3
20
30.0
254
72.4
20
30.0
0
Newton-Conover City
203
78.8
99
88.9
104
69.2
0
*
203
78.8
0
*
0
Davidson
1,470
69.2
726
75.9
744
62.6
0
*
1,470
69.2
0
*
0
Lexington City
164
56.7
65
70.8
99
47.5
0
*
164
56.7
0
*
0
Thomasville City
164
53.7
80
60.0
84
47.6
0
*
164
53.7
0
*
0
Davie
438
69.9
191
76.4
247
64.8
0
*
438
69.9
0
*
0
Winston-Salem/Forsyth
3,337
79.0
1,731
83.4
1,606
74.3
77
54.5
3,260
79.6
77
54.5
0
Iredell-Statesville
1,548
75.3
770
81.2
778
69.5
12
25.0
1,536
75.7
12
25.0
0
Mooresville City
401
79.6
209
85.6
192
72.9
0
*
401
79.6
0
*
0
Stokes
497
76.3
237
85.7
260
67.7
0
*
497
76.3
0
*
0
Surry
629
67.2
305
73.8
324
61.1
2
*
627
67.5
0
*
0
Elkin City
94
85.1
50
88.0
44
81.8
0
*
94
85.1
0
*
0
Mount Airy City
116
75.9
64
78.1
52
73.1
0
*
116
75.9
0
*
0
Watauga
319
86.2
143
91.6
176
81.8
0
*
319
86.2
0
*
0
Wilkes
692
73.4
352
81.3
340
65.3
0
*
692
73.4
0
*
0
Yadkin
466
61.2
215
67.0
251
56.2
0
*
466
61.2
0
*
0
Crossnore Academy**
12
33.3
7
42.9
5
20.0
12
33.3
0
*
12
33.3
0
Quality Education**
12
83.3
5
80.0
7
85.7
12
83.3
0
*
12
83.3
0
C.G. Woodson**
15
46.7
6
66.7
9
33.3
0
*
15
46.7
0
*
0
Pine Lake Prep**
62
83.9
32
84.4
30
83.3
0
*
62
83.9
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Migrant
Percent At
or Above
Number
Level III
Tested
80.1
37
37.8
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
3
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19e. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA and Ethnicity
Southwest Region
Total
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial
White
81
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
State
96,580
71.8
1,141
57.1
2,367
79.1
27,420
58.0
6,904
58.0
2,478
75.3
56,249
80.1
22,431
74.8
201
68.7
598
83.8
6,799
62.7
1,803
60.7
491
79.4
12,539
82.9
Southwest Region
Anson
293
54.9
0
*
8
87.5
200
46.5
5
<=5.0%
5
40.0
75
78.7
Cabarrus
1,984
84.3
6
50.0
32
93.8
346
72.0
156
67.9
65
84.6
1,379
89.2
Kannapolis City
283
70.3
0
*
3
*
96
65.6
42
47.6
7
>=95.0%
135
78.5
Cleveland
1,176
75.6
0
*
8
87.5
338
58.3
24
62.5
23
91.3
783
82.9
Gaston
2,208
67.6
6
83.3
31
83.9
431
52.0
128
57.0
38
52.6
1,574
72.7
Hoke
437
73.7
41
75.6
5
>=95.0%
205
63.4
39
76.9
18
77.8
129
86.8
Lincoln
857
80.3
3
*
2
*
46
58.7
84
72.6
18
88.9
704
82.4
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
8,141
76.5
35
85.7
403
83.1
3,626
67.7
875
61.1
187
81.3
3,015
90.3
Montgomery
264
66.3
1
*
6
83.3
73
57.5
57
52.6
5
80.0
122
77.0
Moore
881
77.2
6
83.3
11
>=95.0%
168
58.3
53
73.6
22
81.8
621
82.0
Richmond
543
64.3
24
50.0
5
80.0
244
49.2
21
57.1
4
*
245
80.8
Rowan-Salisbury
1,314
69.4
3
*
16
75.0
252
57.5
69
55.1
29
82.8
945
73.0
Scotland
418
63.9
63
58.7
5
80.0
186
52.2
2
*
2
*
160
78.8
Stanly
651
66.4
2
*
27
70.4
106
52.8
27
51.9
12
83.3
477
69.4
Union
2,504
76.9
7
57.1
33
87.9
373
57.1
211
54.0
52
76.9
1,828
83.4
Carolina International**
20
65.0
0
*
1
*
8
50.0
1
*
0
*
10
80.0
Piedmont Community**
29
72.4
0
*
0
*
4
*
0
*
1
*
24
83.3
Lincoln Charter**
55
90.9
1
*
0
*
0
*
1
*
0
*
53
90.6
Kennedy Charter**
30
20.0
0
*
0
*
30
20.0
0
*
0
*
0
*
Lake Norman**
108
>=95.0%
0
*
2
*
13
92.3
2
*
3
*
88
>=95.0%
Crossroads Charter**
36
41.7
0
*
0
*
34
41.2
1
*
0
*
1
*
Queen's Grant**
67
82.1
1
*
0
*
12
75.0
1
*
0
*
53
86.8
Gray Stone Day**
64
>=95.0%
0
*
0
*
3
*
1
*
0
*
60
>=95.0%
Union Academy**
68
79.4
2
*
0
*
5
60.0
3
*
0
*
58
81.0
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 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 12, 2009 are not included in this table
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19f. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Southwest Region
Total
Female
Served by Title I
Male
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide Title I
Program
Migrant
Targeted Assistance
82
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
Southwest Region
96,580
22,431
71.8
74.8
48,672
11,246
77.6
80.2
47,908
11,185
66.0
69.3
827
100
57.1
62.0
95,753
22,331
72.0
74.8
605
30
49.1
20.0
185
67
87.0
82.1
37
3
37.8
*
Anson
Cabarrus
Kannapolis City
Cleveland
Gaston
Hoke
Lincoln
Charlotte/Mecklenburg
Montgomery
Moore
Richmond
Rowan-Salisbury
Scotland
Stanly
Union
Carolina International**
Piedmont Community**
Lincoln Charter**
Kennedy Charter**
Lake Norman**
Crossroads Charter**
Queen's Grant**
Gray Stone Day**
Union Academy**
293
1,984
283
1,176
2,208
437
857
8,141
264
881
543
1,314
418
651
2,504
20
29
55
30
108
36
67
64
68
54.9
84.3
70.3
75.6
67.6
73.7
80.3
76.5
66.3
77.2
64.3
69.4
63.9
66.4
76.9
65.0
72.4
90.9
20.0
>=95.0%
41.7
82.1
>=95.0%
79.4
151
979
135
592
1,114
214
389
4,184
134
426
271
651
230
301
1,236
8
10
27
16
48
23
36
39
32
62.3
89.0
76.3
82.3
75.0
79.4
88.9
81.1
72.4
81.2
73.1
75.9
67.8
73.8
82.0
75.0
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
25.0
>=95.0%
43.5
86.1
>=95.0%
78.1
142
1,005
148
584
1,094
223
468
3,957
130
455
272
663
188
350
1,268
12
19
28
14
60
13
31
25
36
47.2
79.8
64.9
68.8
60.1
68.2
73.1
71.7
60.0
73.4
55.5
63.0
59.0
60.0
71.8
58.3
57.9
85.7
14.3
93.3
38.5
77.4
>=95.0%
80.6
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
67
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
20.0
*
*
82.1
*
*
293
1,984
283
1,176
2,208
435
857
8,141
264
881
543
1,313
418
651
2,504
20
29
55
0
108
36
0
64
68
54.9
84.3
70.3
75.6
67.6
73.8
80.3
76.5
66.3
77.2
64.3
69.5
63.9
66.4
76.9
65.0
72.4
90.9
*
>=95.0%
41.7
*
>=95.0%
79.4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
20.0
*
*
*
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
82.1
*
*
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19g. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA and Ethnicity
Northeast Region
83
Total
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial
White
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Percent At
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
Tested
Level III
State
96,580
71.8
1,144
57.2
2,369
79.1
27,434
58.0
6,908
58.0
2,480
75.3
56,245
80.1
5,837
61.4
27
51.9
39
66.7
2,735
49.0
196
51.0
98
67.3
2,742
74.4
Northeast Region
Beaufort
488
58.0
1
*
0
*
185
45.9
27
37.0
7
71.4
268
67.9
Bertie
188
40.4
1
*
0
*
162
38.9
1
*
1
*
23
52.2
Camden
146
80.8
2
*
3
*
22
68.2
2
*
2
*
115
84.3
Edenton/Chowan
167
58.1
0
*
2
*
77
39.0
3
*
1
*
84
75.0
Currituck
306
65.4
0
*
3
*
14
50.0
7
85.7
9
55.6
273
66.3
Dare
374
75.9
1
*
1
*
15
60.0
18
55.6
7
85.7
332
78.0
Edgecombe
458
53.1
0
*
0
*
274
43.8
15
60.0
2
*
167
67.7
Gates
123
68.3
0
*
1
*
50
66.0
1
*
2
*
69
69.6
Halifax
283
45.2
17
52.9
0
*
257
45.1
3
*
0
*
6
50.0
Roanoke Rapids City
192
82.8
1
*
2
*
37
64.9
3
*
3
*
146
87.0
Weldon City
73
43.8
0
*
0
*
71
43.7
1
*
0
*
1
*
Hertford
236
54.2
2
*
0
*
199
51.8
5
40.0
2
*
28
75.0
Hyde
45
71.1
0
*
0
*
20
55.0
2
*
0
*
23
82.6
Martin
239
52.7
1
*
0
*
126
40.5
6
66.7
2
*
104
66.3
Northampton
191
53.9
0
*
1
*
159
52.2
0
*
0
*
31
64.5
Elizabeth City/Pasquotank
425
64.2
0
*
3
*
183
49.2
9
66.7
15
40.0
215
79.1
Perquimans
122
72.1
0
*
0
*
42
57.1
0
*
1
*
79
79.7
Pitt
1,538
62.6
1
*
22
77.3
664
49.1
88
47.7
36
69.4
727
75.9
Tyrrell
41
68.3
0
*
0
*
21
57.1
2
*
0
*
18
88.9
Washington
130
53.8
0
*
1
*
93
48.4
2
*
5
80.0
29
65.5
72
>=95.0%
0
*
0
*
64
>=95.0%
1
*
3
*
4
*
Gaston College Prep**
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19h. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Northeast Region
Total
State
Northeast Region
Female
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
96,580
5,837
71.8
61.4
Served by Title I
Male
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
48,672
2,981
77.6
68.8
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
47,908
2,856
66.0
53.6
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
827
422
57.1
55.0
Not Served by Title I
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
95,753
5,415
72.0
61.9
Schoolwide Title I
Program
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
605
349
49.1
46.7
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
84
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
185
72
87.0
>=95.0%
37
1
37.8
*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>=95.0%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Beaufort
488
58.0
253
66.8
235
48.5
0
*
488
58.0
0
*
Bertie
188
40.4
91
48.4
97
33.0
0
*
188
40.4
0
*
Camden
146
80.8
70
90.0
76
72.4
0
*
146
80.8
0
*
Edenton/Chowan
167
58.1
73
63.0
94
54.3
0
*
167
58.1
0
*
Currituck
306
65.4
136
72.8
170
59.4
0
*
306
65.4
0
*
Dare
374
75.9
184
84.8
190
67.4
0
*
374
75.9
0
*
Edgecombe
458
53.1
236
61.4
222
44.1
0
*
458
53.1
0
*
Gates
123
68.3
66
77.3
57
57.9
0
*
123
68.3
0
*
Halifax
283
45.2
152
53.3
131
35.9
283
45.2
0
*
283
45.2
Roanoke Rapids City
192
82.8
102
83.3
90
82.2
0
*
192
82.8
0
*
Weldon City
73
43.8
41
56.1
32
28.1
0
*
73
43.8
0
*
Hertford
236
54.2
124
57.3
112
50.9
0
*
236
54.2
0
*
Hyde
45
71.1
27
74.1
18
66.7
34
64.7
11
90.9
34
64.7
Martin
239
52.7
119
59.7
120
45.8
0
*
239
52.7
0
*
Northampton
191
53.9
98
63.3
93
44.1
4
*
187
55.1
4
*
Elizabeth City/Pasquotank
425
64.2
217
71.9
208
56.3
0
*
425
64.2
0
*
Perquimans
122
72.1
62
77.4
60
66.7
0
*
122
72.1
0
*
Pitt
1,538
62.6
805
71.1
733
53.3
0
*
1,538
62.6
0
*
Tyrrell
41
68.3
25
72.0
16
62.5
1
*
40
70.0
0
*
Washington
130
53.8
62
58.1
68
50.0
28
46.4
102
55.9
28
46.4
Gaston College Prep**
72
>=95.0%
38
94.7
34
>=95.0%
72
>=95.0%
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19i. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA and Ethnicity
Southeast Region
Total
State
Southeast Region
85
Bladen
Brunswick
Carteret
Columbus
Whiteville City
Craven
Cumberland
Duplin
Greene
Jones
Lenoir
New Hanover
Onslow
Pamlico
Pender
Robeson
Sampson
Clinton City
Wayne
Cape Lookout Marine**
American Indian
Asian
Black
Hispanic
Multi-Racial
White
Number
Tested
96,580
15,677
Percent At
or Above
Level III
71.8
66.7
Number
Tested
1,144
656
Percent At
or Above
Level III
57.2
47.9
Number
Tested
2,369
178
Percent At
or Above
Level III
79.1
73.0
Number
Tested
27,434
5,464
Percent At
or Above
Level III
58.0
55.2
Number
Tested
6,908
1,000
Percent At
or Above
Level III
58.0
59.8
Number
Tested
2,480
467
Percent At
or Above
Level III
75.3
72.4
Number
Tested
56,245
7,912
Percent At
or Above
Level III
80.1
76.6
341
733
629
440
159
960
3,673
541
220
98
686
1,747
1,481
122
577
1,302
548
181
1,218
21
57.8
78.0
76.2
63.2
74.8
65.9
69.3
62.5
48.2
66.3
61.7
67.3
74.6
62.3
84.6
46.3
57.5
75.7
64.8
61.9
2
5
3
19
1
3
50
1
0
1
2
6
7
2
1
538
6
7
2
0
*
80.0
*
78.9
*
*
54.0
*
*
*
*
16.7
85.7
*
*
45.4
66.7
57.1
*
*
0
4
3
1
2
18
79
0
1
1
4
18
17
0
1
7
1
1
20
0
*
*
*
*
*
72.2
79.7
*
*
*
*
66.7
76.5
*
*
85.7
*
*
40.0
*
167
153
55
158
75
307
1,799
169
93
60
345
464
327
25
122
421
167
85
468
4
52.1
68.0
50.9
53.2
64.0
48.2
59.6
59.8
37.6
60.0
51.9
44.2
68.5
48.0
73.0
37.8
53.3
67.1
54.7
*
18
39
12
20
2
40
253
105
30
2
29
60
79
0
44
62
91
23
91
0
27.8
64.1
41.7
45.0
*
65.0
74.3
49.5
36.7
*
51.7
41.7
64.6
*
75.0
51.6
57.1
60.9
56.0
*
1
18
10
3
4
23
145
13
6
2
7
54
106
5
16
13
3
0
37
1
*
83.3
>=95.0%
*
*
82.6
75.9
53.8
33.3
*
57.1
59.3
79.2
60.0
87.5
38.5
*
*
67.6
*
153
514
546
239
75
569
1,347
253
90
32
299
1,145
945
90
393
261
280
65
600
16
67.3
81.7
78.9
70.7
82.7
75.0
80.4
70.0
64.4
78.1
74.2
78.7
76.9
65.6
89.3
60.2
60.4
93.8
74.7
62.5
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19j. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Southeast Region
Total
State
Southeast Region
Female
Served by Title I
Male
Not Served by Title I
Schoolwide 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
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
96,580
15,677
71.8
66.7
48,672
7,937
77.6
72.8
47,908
7,740
66.0
60.5
827
28
57.1
64.3
95,753
15,649
72.0
66.7
605
11
49.1
81.8
185
0
87.0
*
37
17
37.8
52.9
Bladen
341
57.8
176
66.5
165
48.5
3
*
338
58.0
0
*
0
*
3
*
Brunswick
733
78.0
382
83.5
351
72.1
0
*
733
78.0
0
*
0
*
0
*
Carteret
629
76.2
282
83.7
347
70.0
0
*
629
76.2
0
*
0
*
0
*
Columbus
440
63.2
227
70.0
213
55.9
9
66.7
431
63.1
7
71.4
0
*
2
*
Whiteville City
159
74.8
85
84.7
74
63.5
6
>=95.0%
153
73.9
4
*
0
*
2
*
Craven
86
960
65.9
467
71.5
493
60.6
0
*
960
65.9
0
*
0
*
0
*
3,673
69.3
1,882
74.2
1,791
64.0
0
*
3,673
69.3
0
*
0
*
0
*
Duplin
541
62.5
270
70.4
271
54.6
1
*
540
62.6
0
*
0
*
1
*
Greene
220
48.2
107
56.1
113
40.7
0
*
220
48.2
0
*
0
*
0
*
Jones
98
66.3
47
68.1
51
64.7
0
*
98
66.3
0
*
0
*
0
*
Cumberland
Lenoir
686
61.7
333
70.3
353
53.5
1
*
685
61.8
0
*
0
*
1
*
New Hanover
1,747
67.3
861
72.2
886
62.5
0
*
1,747
67.3
0
*
0
*
0
*
Onslow
1,481
74.6
776
80.8
705
67.8
0
*
1,481
74.6
0
*
0
*
0
*
Pamlico
122
62.3
60
70.0
62
54.8
0
*
122
62.3
0
*
0
*
0
*
Pender
577
84.6
299
88.3
278
80.6
7
57.1
570
84.9
0
*
0
*
7
57.1
Robeson
1,302
46.3
688
53.9
614
37.8
0
*
1,302
46.3
0
*
0
*
0
*
Sampson
548
57.5
285
66.3
263
47.9
1
*
547
57.4
0
*
0
*
1
*
Clinton City
181
75.7
93
78.5
88
72.7
0
*
181
75.7
0
*
0
*
0
*
1,218
64.8
606
71.5
612
58.2
0
*
1,218
64.8
0
*
0
*
0
*
21
61.9
11
54.5
10
70.0
0
*
21
61.9
0
*
0
*
0
*
Wayne
Cape Lookout Marine**
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19k. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA and Ethnicity
Central Region
Total
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
American Indian
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
Asian
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
Black
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
Hispanic
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
Multi-Racial
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
White
Percent At
Number
or Above
Tested
Level III
State
Central Region
96,580
31,087
71.8
73.0
1,144
140
57.2
72.9
2,369
1,066
79.1
79.3
27,434
9,896
58.0
58.7
6,908
2,499
58.0
57.5
2,480
913
75.3
76.7
56,245
16,573
80.1
83.4
Alamance-Burlington
Caswell
Chatham
Durham
Franklin
Granville
Guilford
Harnett
Johnston
Lee
Nash-Rocky Mount
Orange
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
Person
Randolph
Asheboro City
1,494
72.4
6
66.7
28
85.7
371
60.4
192
57.3
29
72.4
868
80.4
219
60.7
0
*
1
*
82
53.7
10
50.0
4
*
122
68.0
476
71.6
1
*
6
83.3
90
52.2
86
58.1
21
76.2
272
81.6
2,209
63.9
5
40.0
47
87.2
1,294
54.9
203
51.7
77
77.9
583
84.6
591
73.6
3
*
4
*
224
63.8
36
58.3
7
71.4
317
82.0
557
65.5
4
*
5
80.0
200
52.5
28
57.1
10
70.0
310
74.5
5,084
69.9
26
65.4
275
61.1
2,055
57.5
318
59.1
180
73.9
2,230
83.8
1,253
70.1
17
88.2
5
>=95.0%
349
59.6
121
57.0
52
71.2
709
76.7
1,869
74.7
2
*
14
78.6
341
58.1
201
64.2
51
76.5
1,260
80.7
87
Rockingham
Vance
Wake
Warren
Wilson
River Mill Academy**
Clover Garden**
The Hawbridge School**
Woods Charter**
Kestrel Heights**
Provisions Academy**
Rocky Mount Prep Sch**
Pace Academy**
Roxboro Community**
Franklin Academy**
East Wake Academy**
Raleigh Charter HS**
Community Partners High**
Haliwa-Saponi Tribal**
692
62.4
5
80.0
6
83.3
165
48.5
145
45.5
15
66.7
356
75.0
1,192
61.7
5
80.0
14
71.4
636
48.7
59
55.9
15
66.7
463
79.5
486
74.7
0
*
7
85.7
103
61.2
27
48.1
8
62.5
341
80.9
834
87.9
0
*
95
88.4
116
65.5
60
66.7
40
90.0
523
>=95.0%
360
73.9
0
*
0
*
131
65.6
12
58.3
2
*
215
80.0
1,269
68.5
11
72.7
16
75.0
49
53.1
109
55.0
25
72.0
1,059
70.3
299
63.2
0
*
14
78.6
40
30.0
60
41.7
14
64.3
171
77.2
927
70.8
2
*
11
72.7
221
67.4
50
54.0
23
82.6
620
72.9
482
61.0
1
*
0
*
299
52.2
23
56.5
2
*
157
79.0
9,166
80.8
22
72.7
486
86.2
2,450
66.0
674
60.1
305
81.0
5,229
89.9
203
51.2
12
58.3
0
*
151
48.3
5
40.0
5
80.0
30
60.0
800
67.1
1
*
10
70.0
404
52.5
62
66.1
7
85.7
316
85.4
34
22
14
48
47
8
53
15
76
78
65
132
21
12
82.4
81.8
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
61.7
25
84.9
26.7
92.1
88.5
81.5
>=95.0%
57.1
75.0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
1
0
2
0
0
10
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
80.0
1
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
1
0
1
16
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>=95.0%
*
*
6
1
0
5
23
6
36
8
6
7
11
11
4
1
66.7
*
*
>=95.0%
52.2
33.3
83.3
12.5
83.3
>=95.0%
63.6
81.8
*
*
1
0
0
1
5
1
1
2
0
2
2
2
1
0
*
*
*
*
80.0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
0
1
0
1
3
1
2
1
2
0
1
7
2
0
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
>=95.0%
*
*
25
20
14
41
14
0
10
4
66
69
48
96
14
1
84.0
80.0
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
71.4
*
80.0
*
93.9
87.0
87.5
>=95.0%
64.3
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
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Table 19l. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina General Writing Assessment, 2008-09,
Grade 10, by LEA, Gender, Title I, and Migrant Students
Central Region
Total
Female
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
State
Central Region
96,580
31,087
Alamance-Burlington
Male
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
71.8
73.0
48,672
15,739
77.6
78.2
Served by Title I
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
47,908
15,348
66.0
67.8
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
827
118
Not Served by Title I
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
57.1
72.0
95,753
30,969
Schoolwide Title I
Program
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
72.0
73.0
605
61
Targeted Assistance
Migrant
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
Number
Tested
Percent At
or Above
Level III
49.1
77.0
185
46
87.0
80.4
37
11
37.8
9.1
1,494
72.4
734
77.7
760
67.2
0
*
1,494
72.4
0
*
0
*
0
*
Caswell
219
60.7
99
70.7
120
52.5
0
*
219
60.7
0
*
0
*
0
*
Chatham
476
71.6
215
73.5
261
70.1
1
*
475
71.8
0
*
0
*
1
*
Durham
2,209
63.9
1,130
70.5
1,079
56.9
0
*
2,209
63.9
0
*
0
*
0
*
Franklin
591
73.6
282
81.9
309
66.0
0
*
591
73.6
0
*
0
*
0
*
Granville
557
65.5
300
68.7
257
61.9
0
*
557
65.5
0
*
0
*
0
*
Guilford
5,084
69.9
2,611
75.6
2,473
64.0
0
*
5,084
69.9
0
*
0
*
0
*
Harnett
1,253
70.1
648
77.3
605
62.3
0
*
1,253
70.1
0
*
0
*
0
*
Johnston
1,869
74.7
959
81.1
910
67.9
2
*
1,867
74.8
0
*
0
*
2
*
692
62.4
343
65.9
349
59.0
5
<=5.0%
687
62.9
0
*
0
*
5
<=5.0%
Lee
Nash-Rocky Mount
1,192
61.7
619
66.7
573
56.2
0
*
1,192
61.7
0
*
0
*
0
*
Orange
486
74.7
239
82.8
247
66.8
0
*
486
74.7
0
*
0
*
0
*
Chapel Hill-Carrboro City
834
87.9
415
91.1
419
84.7
0
*
834
87.9
0
*
0
*
0
*
Person
360
73.9
180
81.7
180
66.1
0
*
360
73.9
0
*
0
*
0
*
1,269
68.5
643
77.3
626
59.4
1
*
1,268
68.5
0
*
0
*
1
*
299
63.2
141
70.2
158
57.0
0
*
299
63.2
0
*
0
*
0
*
Randolph
88
Asheboro City
Rockingham
927
70.8
472
76.9
455
64.4
2
*
925
70.8
0
*
0
*
2
*
Vance
482
61.0
262
67.2
220
53.6
0
*
482
61.0
0
*
0
*
0
*
Wake
9,166
80.8
4,569
84.6
4,597
77.0
0
*
9,166
80.8
0
*
0
*
0
*
Warren
203
51.2
109
56.9
94
44.7
0
*
203
51.2
0
*
0
*
0
*
Wilson
800
67.1
440
70.2
360
63.3
0
*
800
67.1
0
*
0
*
0
*
River Mill Academy**
Clover Garden**
The Hawbridge School**
Woods Charter**
Kestrel Heights**
Provisions Academy**
Rocky Mount Prep Sch**
Pace Academy**
Roxboro Community**
Franklin Academy**
East Wake Academy**
Raleigh Charter HS**
Community Partners High**
Haliwa-Saponi Tribal**
34
22
14
48
47
8
53
15
76
78
65
132
21
12
82.4
81.8
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
61.7
25.0
84.9
26.7
92.1
88.5
81.5
>=95.0%
57.1
75.0
17
12
9
25
24
3
23
9
46
39
37
72
8
5
88.2
83.3
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
58.3
*
82.6
22.2
93.5
89.7
83.8
>=95.0%
75.0
60.0
17
10
5
23
23
5
30
6
30
39
28
60
13
7
76.5
80.0
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
65.2
20.0
86.7
33.3
90.0
87.2
78.6
>=95.0%
46.2
85.7
34
0
0
0
0
8
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
82.4
*
*
*
*
25.0
84.9
*
*
*
*
*
*
75.0
0
22
14
48
47
0
0
15
76
78
65
132
21
0
*
81.8
>=95.0%
>=95.0%
61.7
*
*
26.7
92.1
88.5
81.5
>=95.0%
57.1
*
0
0
0
0
0
8
53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
*
*
*
*
*
25.0
84.9
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
34
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
82.4
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
75.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
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 12, 2009 are not included in this table.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
Appendices
89
[This page intentionally blank]
90
Appendix A
North Carolina General Writing Assessment
Grade Levels and Types of Writing by Year
91
[This page intentionally blank]
92
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Appendix A
North Carolina, believing that an emphasis on writing instruction was needed and that the measurement
of writing would enhance instruction, began a statewide writing assessment program in 1983-84. Since
that time, students' writing skills have improved as evident by assessment results, comments from
university personnel, and business leaders. Changes in the program have occurred over time as
illustrated below.
Grade Levels and Types of Writing by Year
Year
1983-84
1984-85
1985-86
1986-87
1987-88
1988-89
1989-90
1990-91
1991-92
1992-93
1993-94
1994-95
1995-96
1996-97
Grade 4
Grade 6
Descriptive
Expository
Expository
Descriptive
Expository
Descriptive
Expository
Descriptive
Expository
Descriptive
Expository
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 9
Persuasive
Expository
Persuasive
Expository
Persuasive
Expository
Persuasive
Expository
Persuasive
Expository
Persuasive
Expository
Grade 10
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
1997-98 Narrative
Expository
Expository
1998-99
1999-00
2000-01
2001-02
2002-03
Narrative
Narrative
Narrative
Narrative
Narrative
Expository
Expository
Expository
Expository
Argumentative
Expository
Expository
Expository
2003-04 Narrative
Argumentative
Informational
2004-05 Narrative
Argumentative
Informational
2005-06 Narrative
Argumentative
Informational
2006-07 Narrative
Argumentative
Informational
2007-08 Narrative
Argumentative
Informational
2008-09 Pilot Year
Pilot Year
Informational
Narrative
Narrative
Narrative
Narrative
Narrative
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountability Services/Test Development Section.
93
Informational
[This page intentionally blank]
94
Appendix B
North Carolina Writing Assessments
1991-92 to 2008-09 Percent of Students Scoring At or
Above Level III
Grade 10
95
[This page intentionally blank]
96
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
Figure 6. North Carolina Testing Program
North Carolina Writing Assessments, 1991-92 to 2008-09,
Percent of Students Scoring At or Above Level III,
Grade 10
100
90
NCAAP
74.0
67.1
70
56.8
60
48.5
50
38.6
40
97
30
58.0
53.9
49.7
46.0
53.1
50.0
72.4
51.4
39.9
50.2
47.8
29.8
26.8
22.4
7.9
1
NCEXTEND1
32.8
28.8
NCAAAI
GENERAL
ASSESSMENT
41.4
32.3
22.3
77.0
71.8
53.3
52.5
11.1
0
62.8
57.8
20
10
NCCLAS
83.8
NCEXTEND2 OCS
9.8
2
1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09
Notes: 1No writing assessment was administered in grade 10 during the 2001-02 school year. Prior to 2001-02, the writing assessment administered at grade 10 was an
English II end-of-course test administered at the end of English II courses which are typically offered at grade 10.
2
The writing standard, scale, and scoring model changed effective with the 2002-03 school year and the data from 2002-03 are reported from the pilot test administration.
The vertical line indicates the NCAAAI was discontinued and replaced by NCCLAS in 2005-06.
The NCAAP was discontinued and the NCEXTEND 2 OCS and the NCEXTEND 1 assessments were operationalized in 2006-07. Beginning in the 2009-10 school
year, the NCCLAS is discontinued.
Data received from LEAs and charter schools after August 12, 2009 are not included in this figure.
Prepared by the NCDPI Division of Accountablility Services/Test Development Section.
Appendix B
Percent of Students
80
[This page intentionally blank]
98
Appendix C
List of North Carolina Charter Schools, 2008-09
99
[This page intentionally blank]
100
Report of Student Performance in Writing, Grade 10, 2008-09
List of North Carolina Charter Schools, 2008-09
Alpha Academy (K-8)
American Renaissance (K-8)
Arapahoe Charter School (K-8)
Arts Based Elementary (K-5)
ArtSpace Charter School (K-8)
Bethany Community Middle (6-8)
Bethel Hill Charter School (K-6)
Brevard Academy (K-8)
Bridges (K-8)
Cape Fear Center for Inquiry (K-8)
Cape Lookout Marine Science (9-12)
Carolina International School (K-10)
Carter Community School (K-8)
Casa Esperanza Montessori (K-6)
Charlotte Secondary School (6)
Charter Day School (K-8)
Chatham Charter School (K-8)
Community School of Davidson (K-6)
CIS Academy (6-8)
Clover Garden (K-12)
Columbus Charter School (K-3)
Crosscreek Charter (K-8)
Crossnore Academy (K-12)
Crossroads Charter High (9-12)
Dillard Academy (K-4)
East Wake Academy (K-12)
Endeavor Charter School (K-8)
Evergreen Community Charter School (K-8)
Exploris Middle School (6-8)
Forsyth Academies (K-8)
Francine Delany New School for Children (K-8)
Gaston College Preparatory (5-12)
Grandfather Academy (5-12)
Gray Stone Day School (9-12)
Greensboro Academy (K-8)
Guilford Prep Academy (K-8)
Haliwa-Saponi Tribal (K-12)
Healthy Start Academy Charter (K-8)
Highland Charter Public School (K-3)
Hope Elementary School (K-5)
Kennedy Charter School (6-12)
Kestrel Heights School (6-12)
Kinston Charter Academy (K-8)
KIPP: Charlotte (5-6)
Lake Norman Charter School (5-8)
Learning Center (K-8)
Lincoln Charter School-Denver (K-12)
Lincoln Charter School-Lincolnton (K-8)
Magellan Charter School (3-8)
Maureen Joy Charter School (K-8)
Metrolina Regional Scholars' Academy (K-8)
Millennium Charter Academy (K-8)
Mountain Discovery Charter (K-8)
Neuse Charter School (K-5)
Orange Charter School (K-8)
PACE Academy (9-12)
Phoenix Academy (K-5)
Piedmont Community School (K-12)
Pine Lake Preparatory (K-11)
PreEminent Charter School (K-8)
Provisions Academy (6-12)
Quality Education Academy (K-10)
Queen's Grant Community Schools (K-10)
Quest Academy (K-8)
Raleigh Charter High School (9-12)
Research Triangle Charter Academy (K-8)
River Mill Academy (K-12)
Rocky Mount Prep. School (K-12)
Roxboro Community School (7-11)
Sallie B. Howard School (K-8)
Sandhills Theatre Arts Renaissance School (STARS) (K-8)
Socrates Academy (K-3)
Southern Wake Academy (9-12)
Sterling Montessori Academy (K-8)
Success Institute (K-8)
Sugar Creek Charter School (K-8)
Summit Charter School (K-8)
The Academy of Moore County (K-8)
The Carter G. Woodson School of Challenge (K-12)
The Central Park School for Children (K-5)
The Children's Village Academy (K-6)
The Community Charter School (K-5)
The Downtown Middle School (5-8)
The Franklin Academy (K-12)
The Hawbridge School (9-12)
The Mountain Community School (K-8)
The New Dimensions School (K-5)
The Woods Charter School (1-12)
Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy (K-12)
Tiller School (K-5)
Torchlight Academy (K-5)
Triad Math and Science (K-7)
Two Rivers Community School (K-8)
Union Academy (K-11)
Vance Charter School (K-12)
Voyager Academy (4-8)
Washington Montessori (K-8)
Wilmington Preparatory Academy (K-4)
101
[This page intentionally blank]
102
Appendix D
North Carolina
Writing Assessment
Consultants
2008-09
103
[This page intentionally blank]
104
North Carolina Writing Assessment at Grade 10
General Assessment and NCEXTEND2 OCS Assessment
Information about the Writing Advisory Consultants
Writing Advisory Consultants are qualified individuals who are divergent thinkers, possess leadership skills,
support the NC Writing Assessment at Grade 10, have a positive record of service, and will devote the
necessary time required to attend the meetings so that the objectives of the group are achieved. Efforts are
made to ensure that the consultants reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of North Carolina’s tenth grade student
population; furthermore, special attention is given to make sure that each geographic region in the state is
represented.
Consultant participation is based on staggered terms and consists of:
 at least six grade-level specific practicing classroom teachers (3 year term)
 at least five grade-span specific practicing classroom teachers (2 year term)
 at least one professional from the English/Language Arts department of NCDPI
 at least one post-secondary professional with experience relevant to the grade (3 year term)
 at least one professional in the area of special education (2 year term)
 at least one professional in the area of limited English proficiency (2 year term)
 at least one professional from the Test Development Section of NCDPI
There are currently two groups of Writing Advisory Consultants:
NCEXTEND2 OCS.
Grade 10 General and Grade 10
Purpose of the Writing Advisory Consultants
The primary purpose of the Writing Advisory Consultants is to make recommendations to NCDPI Test
Development/Accountability Services based not on what students can do, but what students should be expected
to do as outlined in the NC Standard Course of Study (SCS) and NC Occupational Course of Study (OCS) for
English/Language Arts. Additional responsibilities of the Writing Advisory Consultants include selecting
prompts as well as providing guidelines and criteria for the selection of anchor papers to be used in the scoring
of student responses.
Beginning in September of each school year, Writing Advisory Consultants are assembled to select the
operational and alternate prompts for the current school year, as well as any prompts necessary for field testing.
All consultants are required to sign test security and confidentiality agreements in order to protect secure
information about the prompts.
After the selection of prompts, Writing Advisory Consultants are convened to conduct the first round of rangefinding. This first round of range-finding often occurs in February. Range-finding is a major step in the
development process after the field test prompts have been administered to students. The range-finding process
DIVISION OF ACCOUNTABILITY SERVICES
6314 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6314 | (919) 807-3769 | Fax (919) 807-3772
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
involves the scoring contractor, Writing Advisory Consultants, NCDPI Accountability Services/Test
Development Section staff, NCSU-TOPS staff, NCDPI Instructional Services, English/Language Arts staff, and
NCDPI Exceptional Children staff.
The contractor gathers samples of student responses from the field test. The Writing Advisory Consultants
view and score responses to establish “anchor papers.” Anchor papers represent examples of particular score
points and are referenced by the scorers during the scoring process. They are used in conjunction with scoring
rubrics to help in deciding what score points student responses are assigned. This helps to ensure that
consistency in standards is applied to all responses.
Days after the operational administration in March, round two of range-finding occurs. The second stage of the
range-finding process is the same as above EXCEPT that the samples gathered from students are “Live”
responses. “Live” student responses refer to responses that students wrote during the operational administration.
A representative sample of schools are contacted to submit their test materials to NCDPI instead of shipping
them to the contractor. The contractor uses these student responses as samples to conduct round two of rangefinding prior to the start of the scoring project.
All of the papers scored by the Writing Advisory Consultants during both range-finding sessions are used in the
scoring project. Guide sets, Training sets, and Qualification sets are constructed using the student samples
scored by the consultants during range-finding. Scorers use these sets to learn the scoring rubric, practice
applying the scoring rubric, and qualify for a position to score the assessment. Scorers must pass all eligibility
requirements in order to work on the North Carolina Writing Assessment at Grade 10.
Participation of the Writing Advisory Consultants
The following list shows the current North Carolina Writing Advisory Consultants at Grade 10. These
consultants participate on the General Assessment and/or NCEXTEND2 OCS Assessment based on their
education and credentials as well as their current teaching assignments.
For more information, please contact:
Jim Kroening, NCDPI, Director of Performance Assessments at jkroening@dpi.state.nc.us
Akia Beverly-Worsley, NCSU-TOPS, Writing Assessments at akia_worsley@ncsu.edu
Information about the North Carolina Writing Assessment at Grade 10 can be found at:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing/writing/
Information about the North Carolina Testing Program can be found on the NCDPI website:
http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/testing
DIVISION OF ACCOUNTABILITY SERVICES
6314 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6314 | (919) 807-3769 | Fax (919) 807-3772
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER
Writing Advisory Consultants
Grade 10
2009-10
Abourjilie, Karen
Annas, Linda
Bobbe, Peter
Boehm, Jodee
Claytor, Margaret
Dunbar, Deanie
Fedock, Barbara
Gonzales, Janie
Goodman, Jean
Hill, Guy
Jarvis, Joy
Jones, Polly
Killela, Christine
Lemire, Deborah
McCall, Harriet
Memminger, Abigail
Pope, Bettina
Saunders, Hannah
Shiflett, H. Randy
Siegel, Scott
Smith, William
Stephens, Susan
Tart, Michael
White, Mary Beth
Worley, Michele
Zimmerman, John
Guilford County
Cumberland County
Yancey County
Mecklenburg County
Nash County
Perquimans County
Polk County
Harnett County
Alamance County
Harnett County
Beaufort County
Ashe County
Wake County
Harnett County
Onslow County
Cumberland County
Wake County
Perquimans County
Guilford County
Johnston County
Buncombe County
Harnett County
Craven County
Alexander County
Johnston County
Burke County
Region 6
Region 5
Region 1
Region 3
Region 6
Region 4
Region 1
Region 6
Region 6
Region 6
Region 4
Region 2
Region 6
Region 6
Region 5
Region 5
Region 6
Region 4
Region 6
Region 6
Region 1
Region 6
Region 5
Region 2
Region 6
Region 2
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General/NCEXTEND2 OCS
General
General
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General
General
General/NCEXTEND2 OCS
General
General/NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General/ NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General
General
General/NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General/NCEXTEND2 OCS
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General/NCEXTEND2 OCS
General
NCEXTEND2 OCS
General
NCDPI ELA Curriculum Specialists:
Alexander, Bob
Bell, Vinetta
Lee, Freda
NCDPI ELA Consultant
NCDPI ELA Consultant
NCDPI OCS Consultant
DIVISION OF ACCOUNTABILITY SERVICES
6314 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-6314 | (919) 807-3769 | Fax (919) 807-3772
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY/AFFIRMATIVE ACTION EMPLOYER