1 / 16

Philip (Uri) Treisman, UT Austin Mathematics & Charles A. Dana Center October 31, 2002

Charles A. Dana Center Annual October Preservice Conference A Focus on State and National Initiatives. Philip (Uri) Treisman, UT Austin Mathematics & Charles A. Dana Center October 31, 2002. Grade 5 PSSA Results % of students below basic. Source: PDE website.

zelda
Download Presentation

Philip (Uri) Treisman, UT Austin Mathematics & Charles A. Dana Center October 31, 2002

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. Charles A. Dana CenterAnnual October Preservice ConferenceA Focus on State and National Initiatives Philip (Uri) Treisman, UT Austin Mathematics & Charles A. Dana Center October 31, 2002 Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002

  2. Grade 5 PSSA Results% of students below basic Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: PDE website

  3. Grade 5 PSSA Results% of students advanced Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: PDE Website

  4. Grade 4 NSMRE Results% of PPS students who met or exceeded the standard Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 1996 & 1997 cohorts had traditional curriculum, K-4 1998-2002 cohorts had Everyday Math, K-4

  5. Grade 4 NSMRE Results% of students who met or exceeded the standards Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 PPS results are from 2002 National results from 2001

  6. Grade 4 SAT-9 Results 2001% of M&G students in each quartile Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: CA DOE website

  7. Grade 4 NAEP ResultsState rank using average scale score Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: National Center for Education Statistics

  8. 1999 Third International Mathematics and Science Study: Grade 8 Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002

  9. Texas State TAAS Mathematics ResultsPerformance gaps between economically disadvantaged and non-economically disadvantaged students in terms of percentages of students passing TAAS. Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002

  10. Texas State TAAS Mathematics ResultsPercent of variance of TAAS results attributable to Percent Economically disadvantaged Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002

  11. ARC Center Tri-State Student Achievement StudyResearch Questions • Do students who use one of the ARC curricula (Everyday Math, Investigations and Trailblazers) perform better on state mandated tests than students in matched comparison schools who use other curricula? • Were differences between those who use and those who don’t use these reform curricula consistent across gender, racial, and family income subgroups? Source: COMAP Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002

  12. ARC Center Tri-State Student Achievement StudyData Sources • Telephone Survey • State-Mandated Tests • Illinois: ISAT (Grades 3 and 5) Massachusetts: MCAS (Grade 4) Washington: WASL (Grade 4) & ITBS (Grade 3) Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: COMAP

  13. ARC Center StudyMatching Variable Averages for Reform and Comparison Students Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 * Mobility % was not used in matching

  14. ARC Center Tri-State Student Achievement Study Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: COMAP

  15. ARC Center Tri-State Student Achievement StudyPercentile change for reform students relative to comparison students Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: COMAP

  16. ARC Center Tri-State Student Achievement StudyResearch Summary • Largest such study, involved over 100,000 students from three states. • Carefully controlled for reading level, SES, race, LEP, student mobility, and school size. • Used state mandated standardized tests and one nationally normed test. • These curricula work for all students. Students in the reform group outperformed their counterparts in every SES category and racial group. Presentation to the Board of Public Education, Pittsburgh, PA October 24, 2002 Source: COMAP

More Related