1 / 30

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Summary of October 2011 Results Developed for the Providence School Board February 27 , 2012. Presented by: Marco Andrade Office of Research, Planning and Accountability. NECAP Background. NECAP Overview Understanding the NECAP.

sawyer
Download Presentation

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)

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. New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) • Summary of October 2011 Results Developed for the Providence School BoardFebruary 27, 2012 Presented by: Marco Andrade Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  2. NECAP Background • NECAP Overview • Understanding the NECAP • Criterion referenced test of reading and math for gr.3-8, 11writing for gr.5, 8, 11 • Provides info about student performance for previous year (grade level) and school performance • Alignment to GLEs/GSEs - use of data to support school improvement Office of Research, Planning and Accountability Source: Measured Progress (June 2009). New England Common Assessment Program 2008–2009 Technical Report.

  3. NECAP Background • NECAP Overview • Understanding the NECAP • Info used in RI’s accountability system to meet requirements of NCLB • Testing year: reflects students who took the test in Oct 2011 by school building • Teaching year: reflects students who received instruction the prior year (2010-2011) by school building Office of Research, Planning and Accountability Source: Measured Progress (June 2009). New England Common Assessment Program 2008–2009 Technical Report.

  4. District Results • Performance Levels • Key Findingsin Reading • The percentage of students scoring proficient remained essentially consistent (due to rounding) from 48% in 2009 to 48% in 2011. • When looking at overall performance over the past five to six years, we have made significant gains in reading. • The district has not kept pace with gains made state-wide. The percentage gap in proficient or higher widened in 2011.  Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  5. NECAP Reading Aggregate Results Reported by Performance Levels for District & State

  6. District Results • Mean Scaled Scores • Key Findingsin Reading • After reaching the minimum level for proficiency of 40 in 2010, the mean scaled score decreased to 39 in 2011. This is a statistically significant decrease. • The mean scaled score had increased each year by at least one point from 33 in 2005 to 40 in 2010 before decreasing by one point in 2011. • The performance gap between the district and state widened in 2011. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  7. NECAP Reading Aggregate Results Reported by Scaled Scores for District & State

  8. District Results • Performance Levels • Key Findingsin Writing • The majority of district students who took NECAP writing were below proficient (68%). • The performance gap between the district and state widened in 2011. • Note that 2009 was a pilot year for Grades 5 and 8 and only reflects the performance of Grade 11 students.  Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  9. NECAP Writing Aggregate Results Reported by Performance Levels for District & State

  10. District Results • Mean Scaled Scores • Key Findingsin Writing • The writing mean scaled score decreased from 37 in 2010 to 33 in 2011. This is a statistically significant decrease. • There is a 3-year negative trend in the district-level writing mean scale score for 2008, 2010 and 2011 (years with data available). • The performance gap between the district and state widened in 2011. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  11. NECAP Writing Grades 5 & 8 Results Reported by Scaled Scores for District & State

  12. District Results • Rubric Mean Score • Key Findingsin Writing • Scoring rubric mean scores range from 0 to 12. A scoring rubric mean score of 6 is the demarcation for minimum proficiency. • The writing test in 2009 was based on procedural writing while the 2010 test was based on reflective essay writing. In 2011 the grade 5 test was based on report writing, grade 8 on response to informational text, and grade 11 test on persuasive writing. • The rubric mean score among grade 11 students decreased from 6.1 in 2009 to 5.6 in 2011. This is a negative 3-year trend. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  13. NECAP Writing Grade 11 Results Reported by Scoring Rubric Mean Score for District & State

  14. District Results • Performance Levels • Key Findingsin Math • The percentage of students scoring proficient increased from 28% in 2009 to 32% in 2011. This is a positive 3-year trend. • The percentage of students scoring substantially below proficient remained at 46% from 2010 to 2011. • There is a large performance gap between the district and state. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  15. NECAP Math Aggregate Results Reported by Performance Levels for District & State

  16. District Results • Mean Scaled Scores • Key Findingsin Math • The mean scaled score remained at 34 from 2010 to 2011 breaking a pattern of one to two point annual swings in the scaled score. • There is no trend in math scaled score. • The performance gap between the district and state has remained the same since 2010. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  17. NECAP Math Aggregate Results Reported by Scaled Scores for District & State

  18. Performance Gaps • NECAP Performance Gaps • Key Findingsin Reading Reading Gaps. • The performance gap in reading widened among all group comparisons from 2009-2011 with the exception of the free/reduced lunch group. • There is a 3-year negative trend (widening gap) in the reading gap between Hispanic and Black students in comparison to White students. • There continues to be a large performance gap of approximately 40 percentage points for groups such as students with IEP status and students with LEP status. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  19. Performance Gaps • NECAP Performance Gaps • Key Findingsin Math Math Gaps. • The performance gap in math widened among all group comparisons with the exception of the free/reduced lunch group. • Despite Black students having a 3-year positive trend in math, the gap widened between Hispanic and Black students in comparison to White students. • There continues to be a large performance gap for groups such as students with IEP status (30 percentage point gap) and students with LEP status (25 percentage point gap). Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  20. Percentage Point Difference Between Student Proficiency in each Group (Teaching Year)

  21. Grade-level Results • NECAP Performance • Key Findingsin Reading Reading - Annual Changes and Trends. • Grades 6, 7, and 8 each had an annual increase in percent proficient. • Grades 7 and 8 also had an annual increase in scaled score. • Grade 8 had a 3-year positive trend in percent proficient and scaled score. • Grades 3, 4, and 5 each had an annual decrease in percent proficient. • Grades 4 and 5 also had an annual decrease in scaled score. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  22. Grade-level Results • NECAP Performance • Key Findingsin Math Math - Annual Changes and Trends. • Grades 4, 6, 7, and 8 each had an annual increase in percent proficient. • Grades 6, 7, 8, and 11 had an annual increase in scaled score. • Grade 6 had a 3-year positive trend in both percent proficient and scaled score. • Grades 3 and 5 had an annual decrease in percent proficient. • Grade 3 also had an annual decrease in scaled score. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  23. NECAP Performance by Grade Level, 2009-2011 (TESTING YEAR)

  24. School-level Results • NECAP Performance • Key Findingsin Reading Reading – Annual Changes and Trends • The majority of elementary schools (n=12) showed a decrease in percent proficient in Reading over fall 2010. • The majority of middle schools showed an increase in percent proficient in reading compared to 2010 (5 of 7 middle schools). • Across all levels there were as many positive as negative trends in reading (six of each). Twenty-nine schools had no trend or insufficient data. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  25. School-level Results • NECAP Performance • Key Findingsin Math Math - Annual Changes and Trends • Half of elementary schools (11 of 22) showed an improvement in percent proficient in math over fall 2010. • Eleven of the 22 elementary schools showed a positive 3-year trend in math. None showed a negative trend. • Four of the seven middle schools had a positive annual change. • Three of 12 high schools improved their percent proficient in math compared to 2010. • Across all levels, there were 12 positive trends to four negative trends in math. Twenty-five schools had no trend or insufficient data. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  26. 1-Year Changes and 3-Year Trends among Schools (Teaching Year)

  27. School-level Results • Percent Proficient • Key Findings • 9 of 22 (41%) Elementary schools have a majority of students proficient in Reading. • 4 of 22 (18%) Elementary schools have a majority of students proficient in Math. • 4 of 7 (57%) Middle schools have a majority of students proficient in Reading. • 2 of 7 (29%) Middle schools have a majority of students proficient in Math. • 5 of 12 (42%) High schools have a majority of students proficient in Reading. • No district high school has a majority of students scoring proficient in Math. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  28. Summary of Key Findings • District-level Performance: As a school district, Providence has remained relatively unchanged in its reading and math scores from the previous year. When looking at overall performance over the past five to six years, Providence Public Schools have made significant gains in reading. • Grade-level Performance: The middle school grade levels demonstrated gains in reading and math. The mean scaled scores and percentage of students who are scoring proficient in reading and math increased from 2010 to 2011 for grades 6, 7, and 8. In fact, grade 8 has a 3-year positive trend in both the percentage of students scoring proficient and mean scaled score for reading. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  29. Summary of Key Findings • School-level Performance: School level results were most positive for Providence Middle Schools; the majority of which had an annual increase in percent proficient for reading (5 of 7 middle schools) and math (4 of 7 middle schools). Half of the elementary schools had a 3-year positive trend in math percent proficient. • Achievement Gaps: Large achievement gaps persist particularly among students with IEPs and students of current Limited English Proficiency status. There are other significant achievement gaps in the disaggregated, grade level performance data including racial/ethnic disparities. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

  30. 4-year Graduation Rate • After a 4-year positive trend, the 2011 4-year graduation rate declined to 66.1%. • Dropout rate has remained consistent at 1 in 5 students since 2008. Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

More Related