Download
1 / 19
190 likes | 344 Views
2012-2013 Elementary School R eading and Math Analysis By Various Subgroups. Winston-Salem / Forsyth County Schools Presentation to Elementary Principals Kelly Denise Hill. Purpose.
E N D
2012-2013 Elementary School Reading and Math AnalysisBy Various Subgroups Winston-Salem/ Forsyth County Schools Presentation to Elementary Principals Kelly Denise Hill
Purpose Provide an in depth analysis of elementary school reading scores by three of the largest subgroups (i.e. Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic) during the 2012-2013. The smaller reporting groups are not included in this analysis (e.g., American Indian, Asian, and Multiracial subgroups) as they often produce varying results and patterns that are not consistent.
Information for Analysis The following information is included: • State Averages and Large District EOGS • W-S/ FCS District Elementary Schools Reading EOGs • W-S/ FCS District Elementary Schools Teachscape It is worth noting that the data sets provided serve as a representation of the Winston-Salem/ Forsyth County Schools Board of Education’s more comprehensive data set.
Sources of Data • Subgroup data: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/ • Data from Office of Accountability W-S/FCS • Teachscape: http://www.teachscape.com/
2012-2013 NC 3-5 EOGProficiency Averages in State (State DPI)
2012-2013 NC 5 Urban Districts Reading 3-5 EOGReading Proficiency Averages in State and Urban Districts (State DPI) # of tests taken 79,470 48,635 168,651 5 4 4 3,165 2,832 4,989 4 5 3 3,376 1,793 1,375 3 3 5 5,760 1,895 5,560 2 2 2 12,627 6,085 10,476 1 1 1 7,145 5,245 16,544 The above calculations are of all subgroup categories and do not include EXTEND 1/ EXTEND 2. Regular (Multiple Choice) assessments were used in this comparison.
2012-2013 NC 5 Urban Districts Math 3-5 EOGMath Proficiency Averages in State and Urban Districts (State DPI) # of tests taken 80,062 49,188 169,612 4 4 3,179 2,854 5,008 5 5 5 3 3,401 1,813 1,377 3 3 5,828 1,935 5,587 4 2 2 1 12,700 6,131 10,503 1 1 2 7,233 5,355 16,640 The above calculations are of all subgroup categories and do not include EXTEND 1/ EXTEND 2. Regular (Multiple Choice) assessments were used in this comparison.
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Grade 3 Reading and Math Multiple-Choice Assessment by African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Reading Math ProficiencyPercentages African- American Hispanic Caucasian EthnicityReading vs. Math
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Grade 4 Reading and Math Multiple-Choice Assessment by African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Reading Math ProficiencyPercentages African- American Hispanic Caucasian EthnicityReading vs. Math
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Grade 5 Reading and Math Multiple-Choice Assessment by African American, Hispanic, and Caucasian Reading Math ProficiencyPercentages African- American Hispanic Caucasian EthnicityReading vs. Math
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Grade 3-5 EDS Reading Multiple-Choice Assessment by Grade Numbers Represent Difference in Percentages EDS NOT EDS ProficiencyPercentages 53.6 53.0 59.4 3rd 4th 5th Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged
Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Grade 3-5 EDS Math Multiple-Choice Assessment by Grade Numbers Represent Difference in Percentages EDS NOT EDS ProficiencyPercentages 48.8 39.8 37.0 3rd 4th 5th Economically Disadvantaged vs. Not Economically Disadvantaged
Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grade 3 Reading Identifying Group Format 2,815 Total Entries 45.6 % 33.8 % 6.7 % 26.5 % Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 78.5 % 70.2 % 44.7 % 19.9 % 7.7 % 2.9 % 32.8 % 38.5 % 12.0 % 27.5 % 20.9 % Responses Responses
Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grade 4 Reading Identifying Group Format 2,693 Total Entries 47.4 % 32.3 % 6.6 % 24.0 % Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 75.3 % 70.2 % 44.4 % 21.9 % 10.6 % 3.2 % 30.0 % 33.4 % 11.2 % 25.3 % 24.5 % Responses Responses
Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grade 5 Reading Identifying Group Format 2,142 Total Entries 49.4 % 30.3 % 7.3 % 26.7 % Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 75.6 % 74.2 % 49.4 % 25.7 % 12.3 % 5.6 % 31.3 % 38.5 % 12.8 % 28.8 % 20.4 % Responses Responses
Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grade 3 Math Identifying Group Format 2,055 Total Entries 62.9 % 19.6 % 5.9 % 19.2 % Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 73.5 % 73.6 % 54.9 % 25.7 % 11.7 % 4.4 % 30.4 % 41.1 % 16.2 % 28.9 % 24.5 % Responses Responses
Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grade 4 Math Identifying Group Format 2,105 Total Entries 61.3 % 22.2 % 6.3 % 22.4 % Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 73.2 % 70.4 % 50.2 % 23.3 % 10.2 % 3.1 % 26.7 % 35.6 % 15.2 % 23.6 % 25.3 % Responses Responses
Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grade 5 Math Identifying Group Format 1949 Total Entries 60.0 % 20.5 % 7.7 % 24.3 % Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 72.9 % 70.7 % 54.8 % 27.8 % 13.9 % 4.5 % 27.3 % 40.1 % 13.1 % 25.7 % 23.4 % Responses Responses
Next Steps: • Have a Math teacher or someone great with data create charts with appropriate scales • Review Teachscape Data in the School monthly • Monitor Instructional practices and quarterly benchmarks in relation to one another • Remember ICEL (Instruction, Curriculum, Environment and Learner) and RIOT(Review of records, interviews, observations, and testing data)
