1 / 23

Educational Indicators of Student Success

Educational Indicators of Student Success . 2006-2007 Standardized Assessment Report for The School District of Clayton. Board’s Questions. Comparison of performance of Clayton students with IEPs to students with IEPs statewide

nedaa
Download Presentation

Educational Indicators of Student Success

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. Educational Indicators of Student Success 2006-2007 Standardized Assessment Report for The School District of Clayton

  2. Board’s Questions • Comparison of performance of Clayton students with IEPs to students with IEPs statewide • Re-consider our “quality control” questions with a view toward more longitudinal data • More information about MAP questions • Other assessments used to identify students with potential learning problems

  3. New Features • Combined district and high school information on standardized assessments • Separate information on other indicators of program quality (Academic Supplement) • Additional ERB writing test information • ACT sub-scale scores • School-level MAP reports (appendices) • AYP information • Additional longitudinal and cohort comparisons

  4. Data Sources • District Assessment Matrix (page 52) • Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) • Educational Records Bureau (ERB) writing exam • EXPLORE • PLAN • ACT • SAT

  5. Data Analysis • External comparisons to national or statewide groups • Cohort-to-cohort comparisons • Longitudinal comparisons for a single cohort • Internal comparisons among sub-groups • Strengths and weaknesses, highs and lows

  6. Data Cautions • Test publishers do not all provide information in the same format • All data are not created equal • Data “torture” • Data-driven vs. data-informed

  7. Q#1 How are Clayton students achieving in reading and English? • Clayton’s MAP communication arts scores consistently higher than Missouri’s • median percentile scores • % of students scoring proficient and advanced • % of items correct on content standard of speaking/writing standard English (at all grade levels) • ERB writing test scores slightly lower than suburban norms at 6th grade level; higher than suburban districts at 9th grade level.

  8. Q#1 English and reading (cont.) • EXPLORE • Disproportionate % of Clayton students scoring in the top quartiles • English, reading, and composite scores consistently higher than national scores over a 5-year period

  9. Q#1 English and reading (cont.) • PLAN scores like EXPLORE • ACT scores also very high • skewed into top quartiles • consistently higher than state and national means over 5-year span • SAT writing and critical reading scores • skewed into top quartiles • consistently higher than state and nation over 5-year span

  10. Q#1 Mathematics • Clayton’s MAP mathematics scores consistently higher than Missouri’s • median percentile scores • % of students scoring proficient and advanced • % of items correct on content standard related to numbers and operations (at all grade levels) • EXPLORE • disproportionate % of Clayton students scoring in the top quartiles • mathematics and composite scores consistently higher than national scores over a 5-year period

  11. Q#1 Mathematics (cont.) • PLAN scores mirror EXPLORE • ACT scores are also very high • mathematics and composite scores consistently higher than national scores over a 5-year period • disproportionate % of Clayton students scoring in the top quartiles

  12. Q#1 Science • EXPLORE • disproportionate % of Clayton students scoring in the top quartiles • science and composite scores consistently higher than national scores over a 5-year period • PLAN scores mirror EXPLORE • ACT scores are very high in the same way that EXPLORE and PLAN are

  13. Q#1 Summary • Clayton students achieved consistently high scores on all types of assessments, taken at all grade levels, in all content areas tested. • This year’s 6th grade ERB results are good but did not exceed those of other suburban districts.

  14. Q#1 Adequate Yearly Progress • NCLB requires setting target rates of proficiency for district, schools, and sub-groups within schools. • MAP is the assessment used. • In 2007, district and most schools did not make AYP for one or more sub-groups of students in communication arts. • All sub-groups in all schools and district as a whole made AYP in mathematics.

  15. Q#2 How are cohorts of students achieving on assessments over time? • Due to discontinuation of CTB Multiple Assessments and prior MAP grade span testing, there are more gaps in information collected. • 12th grade cohort: No educationally significant differences in Terra Nova percentiles in any subject between grades 6-11 • 11th grade cohort: A statistically significant drop in science between grade 6 and 7 • 9th grade cohort: Increase in reading performance between grades 3-4 may be statistically significant

  16. Q#3 How does the achievement of racial sub-groups compare? • Differences remain in the % of Asian, white, and African-American students achieving proficiency. • All subject areas: reading, English, mathematics, science • All assessments: MAP, EXPLORE, PLAN, ACT, SAT • Caveat: different group sizes

  17. Q#3 Achievement of racial sub-groups (cont.) • Good news • Increases in percentage of African-American students scoring proficient or advanced on MAP between grades 3 – 4 and 4 – 5 in both CA and MA • Clayton’s percentage of African-American students scoring proficient and advanced exceeds that of the state in both CA and MA, with exception of grade 3 CA.

  18. Q#4 How does the achievement of students with IEPs compare to that of students without IEPs? • MAP is sole data source. • Gaps (some very large) exist between performance of students with and without IEPs in both CA and MA at all grade levels. • Caveat: difference in group sizes

  19. Q#4 Achievement of students with IEPs (cont.) • More Clayton students with IEPs score proficient or advanced than does statewide peer group. • Inconsistent pattern of improvement between cohorts in 2006 and 2007 • Need to do longitudinal comparisons

  20. Q#5 How does the achievement of female and male students compare? • Data sources: MAP, EXPLORE, PLAN, ACT, SAT • MAP shows variable amounts of difference between gender scores at most grade levels in CA and MA. • Longitudinal comparisons of MAP show similar increases at most grade levels.

  21. Q#5 Gender achievement comparison (cont.) • EXPLORE scores strikingly similar, with differences of less than 1 point on any subtest • PLAN scores similar, but a 3 point difference in English • ACT scores very similar • SAT scores higher for males on all subtests • Need to do more longitudinal comparisons

  22. Next year…. • Science will be restored to MAP at grades 5, 8, and 11. • AYP proficiency targets will be 51% in communication arts and 45% in mathematics.

More Related