1 / 19

2011-2012 Middle School Reading Analysis By Various Subgroups

2011-2012 Middle School Reading Analysis By Various Subgroups. Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Presentation to Dr. Montague-Davis P roject One. Purpose.

ingrid-fry
Download Presentation

2011-2012 Middle School Reading Analysis By Various Subgroups

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2011-2012 Middle School Reading AnalysisBy Various Subgroups Winston-Salem/Forsyth County Schools Presentation to Dr. Montague-Davis Project One

  2. Purpose • Provide an in depth analysis of middle school reading scores by three of the largest subgroups (i.e. Caucasian, African American, and Hispanic) for the previous five years at Winston-Salem/ Forsyth County Schools. • Serve as a component in the development of an action plan to respond to the findings. (from assignment two) 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.

  3. Information for Analysis The following information is included: • Middle School State Averages and Large District Reading EOGS • W-S/ FCS District Middle Schools Reading EOGS • District Title One Vs. Non-Title Middle School • W-S-/ FCS District Middle 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.

  4. Sources of Data • Subgroup data: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/accountability/ • Teachscape: http://www.teachscape.com/

  5. Data Scrubbing Purpose: compensate for non-number (masked) data from NC DPI in Structured Query Language : when [pct_prof] = '>95' then 97 When [pct_prof] = '<5' then 3 when [pct_prof] = ‘*' then delete record Note: The use of 97 and 3 make the data parallel.

  6. Data Subgroups Included • BLCK Black • HISP Hispanic • WHTE White • MALE Male • FEM Female • EDS Economically Disadvantaged Student • NOT_EDS Not Economically Disadvantaged Student • LEP Limited English Proficiency • NOT_LEP Not Limited English

  7. State DPI Source of Data

  8. 2011-2012 NC 5 Urban Districts Reading 6-8 EOGReading Proficiency Averages in State and Urban Districts (State DPI) # of test taken 5 4 5 2,290 3,393 5,207 4 5 4 3,645 1,485 1,161 3 3 3 3,393 3,393 3,393 1 1 1 9,517 12,711 4,898 2 2 2 8,183 4,327 16,023 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.

  9. W-S/ FCS VS. North Carolina Middle School Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient By Cohort Change indicated- from 2011 to 2012 Student Proficiency Averages in cohort model… Most likely not answer. The decrease in the seventh grade is most likely a function of psychometrics of the reading test rather than the seventh grade decreasing. This observation is strengthened by the student proficiency averages not having a significant change from year to year.

  10. W-S/ FCS VS. North Carolina Middle School Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient Yearly State and District Comparison Change indicated- from 2011 to 2012 Student Proficiency Averages over through year more likely. -0.1 change 0.6 change -0.2 change 1.0 change 0.4 change -1.7 change 1.4 change 0.3 change Although it may appear that the 7th grade is an issue in W_S/ FCS, the pattern is also observed state wide. Further, there is an apparent recover in the rates of proficiency in the 8th grade. Combined this may indicate an issue with the testing rather than the 7th grade scores.

  11. W-S/ FCS VS. North Carolina Middle School Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Five Year Comparison to State Reading Percent Proficient Past Five Years Yellow Box Indicates Lowest State Percent Proficient By Grade (6,7,8) in Testing Year • The 2008-09 results will not be comparable to results from previous years because retests were not incorporated in earlier editions of the report. 

  12. Data Pull by Three Ethnicities

  13. Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient North Carolina Vs. W-S/ FCS By Three Ethnicities North Carolina 6-8 EOG W-S/ FCS 6-8 EOG School Year School Year

  14. Percent Proficient 33.2 35.8 34.2 34.5 40.1

  15. Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient Economically DisadvantagedTitle One vs. Non-Title 2011-2012 Title One Not Title One ProficiencyPercentages Economically Disadvantaged ProficiencyTitle One vs. Non-Title One

  16. Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient Limited English ProficiencyTitle One vs. Non-Title 2011-2012 Title One Not Title One ProficiencyPercentages Limited English ProficiencyTitle One vs. Non-Title One

  17. Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient EthnicityTitle One vs. Non-Title 2011-2012 Title One Not Title One ProficiencyPercentages African- American Hispanic Caucasian EthnicityTitle One vs. Non-Title One

  18. Grade 6 – 8 EOG District Reading Percent Proficient By Grade Title One vs. Non-Title 2011-2012 Title One Not Title One ProficiencyPercentages Grade Scores Title One vs. Non-Title One

  19. Last Year By Middle School W-S/ FCS District Teachscape Grades 6-8: All Subjects 25910 Total Entries Identifying Group Format Responses What evidence do you see that the teacher is responding to the different learning needs? Determine level(s) of student work 64.8 % 69.1% 38.3 % 15.0 % 4.4 % 5.8 % Responses Responses

More Related