elementary assessment data update edmonds school district january 2013

Elementary AssessmentData UpdateEdmonds School DistrictJanuary 2013

Learning Target

•To summarize trends and patterns seen in current district elementary student achievement data in literacy, math, and science, especially in relation to district curriculum adoptions.

Agenda

1. Literacy▫MSP Reading and Writing results▫Correlations among Literacy Assessments▫Relationship between Benchmark Comprehension Assessment

and MSP Reading▫Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Levels▫Reflection on Literacy Results

2. Math and Science▫MSP Math Results▫Grade 2 Math Assessment Results▫MSP Science Results▫Reflection on Math/Science Results

Literacy

Reading WASL/MSP Grade 3Percent Meeting Standard

Spring 09 Spring 10 Spring 11 Spring 12

District 72.7 74.3 78.2 74.0

State 71.4 72.1 73.1 68.8

Difference 1.3 2.2 5.1 5.2

1st year of Benchmark

1st year of MTI



District 73.9 68.2 71.2 76.1

State 73.6 67.2 67.3 71.5

Difference 0.3 1.0 3.9 4.6


1st year of MTI



District 71.8 70.0 73.4 74.8

State 74.0 69.6 67.7 71.1

Difference -2.2 0.4 5.7 3.7


1st year of MTI



District 72.5 69.3 75.2 77.4

State 72.0 64.6 70.6 70.7

Difference 0.5 4.7 4.6 6.7


1st year of MTI

Summarize•Based on the district-wide MSP Reading results

we’ve just reviewed, write 1 or 2 statements that summarize the trends and patterns you see in the data.

•Use the lines on your PowerPoint handout for recording your summary.

•You may do this on your own or with a partner.

Summary of MSP Reading Data (in terms of differences between district and state averages)• In Grades 3-5, the percent of students meeting standard

on the Reading MSP:▫ increased by at least 3 percentage points in the first year of

Benchmark implementation, and ▫ in the second year maintained a level consistent with this

higher achievement. • In Grade 6, the percent of students meeting standard:▫ stayed about the same in the first year of Benchmark

implementation as the previous year, but ▫ increased by 2 percentage points in the second year of

implementation.

Writing WASL/MSP Grade 4Percent Meeting Standard


District 61.4 62.8 65.2 68.9

State 60.4 61.1 61.4 61.4

Difference 1.0 1.7 3.8 7.5


1st year of MTI

Summary of MSP Writing Data (in terms of differences between district and state averages)

•Since the Benchmark materials adopted by the district do not explicitly address writing skills, the change in the district’s Grade 4 writing performance has been somewhat unexpected, with▫an increase of about 2 percentage points in the first

year of Benchmark implementation, and▫an additional 4 percentage point increase in the

second year of implementation.

Relationships Among Measures•A correlation is a statistic ranging between -1.0 and

1.0 that measures the extent to which two variables are related.

•When two variables are related positively, it means that when one goes up, the other one also tends to go up.

•When two variables are related negatively, it means that when one goes up, the other one tends to go down.

Relationships Among Measures

•A correlation close to zero means that the two variables have essentially no relationship (i.e., they are measuring independent constructs).

•A correlation of about .60 or above is considered relatively strong.

•The higher the correlation, the stronger the relationship.

•Correlations reported here are from the 2011-12 school year.

Kindergarten Literacy Correlations

Assessments Correlations Comments

Sight Words –Winter with Spring .81 Very high relationship

Sight Words –• Fall with Winter• Fall with Spring

.57.24

Perhaps correlations with Fall are lower because the number of sight words expected in fall is quite low.

Spring Sight Words withSpring Comprehension .26

These two assessments are measuring different constructs within Kindergarten literacy.

Grade 1 Literacy Correlations


Spring Independent Reading Level with Spring Comprehension

.62 Fairly high relationship

Fall and Winter Independent Reading Levels with Spring Comprehension

.46 (fall).56 (winter)

More time between assessments. Lots of learning happening in 1st grade.

Grade 2 Literacy Correlations


Fall Grade 2 Reading Assessment withIndependent Reading Level (fall, winter, spring)

.81 (fall)

.77 (winter)

.68 (spring) Strong relationship between Grade 2 Reading Assessment and Independent Reading Level.Spring Grade 2 Reading

Assessment withIndependent Reading Level (fall, winter, spring)

.76 (fall)

.80 (winter).79 (spring)

Grades 3 - 6 Correlations: MSP and Benchmark Comprehension


Spring MSP Reading withBenchmark Comprehension (fall, winter, spring)

3 4 5 6The Benchmark Comprehension Assessments have a fairly strong relationship with the Reading MSP.

FallWinterSpring

.68 .69 .66

.67

.71

.63

.56

.65

.64

.58

.35

.67

Grades 3 - 6 Correlations: MSP and Independent Reading Levels


Spring MSP Reading withIndependent Reading Levels (fall, winter, spring)

3 4 5 6Independent Reading Levels have a lower relationship with the Reading MSP at grades 4-6 than at grade 3.

FallWinterSpring

.63 .66 .68

.51

.55

.57

.52

.58

.58

.50

.59

.56

Summarize•Based on the district-wide Literacy correlations we’ve

just reviewed, write 2 or 3 statements that summarize the trends and patterns you see in the data.



Summary of Literacy Correlations• In general, the Benchmark Comprehension

Assessments appear to be a relatively good predictor of performance on the Reading MSP.

•As students get older, Independent Reading Levels appear to be a somewhat lower predictor of MSP Reading performance. However, the sample is skewed since students in the MSP grades are only given a running record if they are new to the district or have not met standard on another assessment.

Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level•Both DIBELS and Independent Reading Levels

measure foundational reading skills.•Using 2011-12 data, we can compare alignment

between DIBELS recommendations and Independent Reading Levels.

•However, only at Grade 1 are nearly all students tested on both measures. In Grades 2-6, only students below target on another measure are given both measures.

Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading LevelStudents would be considered “out of alignment” between these two measures if they scored:

DIBELS – Intensive AND Instructional Reading Level – Meets or Exceeds

OR

DIBELS – Benchmark AND Instructional Reading Level – Below

Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level

1 2 3 4 5 6

DIBELS Intensive AND Meets/Exceeds on Independent Reading Level 3 21 6 10 10 13

DIBELS Benchmark AND Below on Independent Reading Level 8 2 9 7 15 4

Number of Students in “Out of Alignment” Categories by Grade Level

Summary of Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level•The numbers of students who are “out of alignment”

between DIBELS and Independent Reading Levels are quite small.

•The largest group – 21 2nd graders who are “false negatives” on DIBELS – comprise only about 1 percent of enrolled students at that grade level.

•These data remind us of the importance of using multiple measures when making placement decisions about students.

School Team Reflection on Literacy Results

•Think across all the literacy data we have just seen and discussed. Remember that real-life data are typically somewhat messy!

•What surprises you in the data?•What fits with your expectations?•What are implications of the Literacy data for

our work as a district? Please record this on your School Team Reflection sheet.

Math WASL/MSP Grade 3Percent Meeting Standard

Spr 07 Spr 08 Spr 09 Spr 10 Spr 11 Spr 12

District 72.1 68.6 69.6 64.3 65.6 69.6

State 69.6 68.6 66.3 61.8 61.6 65.3

Difference 2.5 0 3.3 2.5 4.0 4.3

1st year of Expressions

1st year of MTI



District 59.2 52.7 48.5 54.9 54.6 60.2

State 58.1 53.6 52.3 53.7 59.3 59.4

Difference 1.1 -0.9 -3.8 1.2 -4.7 0.8


1st year of MTI



District 58.7 60.4 63.5 57.0 68.8 64.6

State 59.5 61.2 61.9 53.6 61.3 63.8

Difference -0.8 -0.8 1.6 3.4 7.5 0.8


1st year of MTI



District 49.7 52.9 54.6 57.6 62.7 68.9

State 49.6 49.1 50.9 51.9 58.8 61.5

Difference 0.1 3.8 3.7 5.7 3.9 7.4

• 6th graders had 3 years of Expressions;

• Pilot of 6th grade Expressions in 5 schools.

1st year of MTI

Summarize•Based on the district-wide MSP Math results we’ve

just reviewed, write 2 or 3 statements that summarize the trends and patterns you see in the data.



Summary of MSP Math Data (in terms of differences between district and state averages)• Grade 3 -- most consistent improvement in MSP Math

performance since Expressions implementation.• Grade 4 -- least consistent MSP Math performance --

connected to scope and sequence issues.• Grade 5 -- consistent improvement from Spring ‘09 – ’11;

dropped in Spr ‘12 but still above pre-Expressions levels.• Grade 6 -- improvement in Spr 2012 of about 2 to 4

percentage points over previous years. ▫5 schools piloted Grade 6 Expressions in 2011-12▫6th graders had been in Expressions for previous three

years.

District Grade 2 Math Assessment

District Grade 2 Math Assessment


1st year of MTI

Relationship between Grade 2 Math Assessment and WASL/MSP Math•Correlations between Grade 2 Math Assessment and

WASL/MSP Math range from:▫ low of .55 correlation between Grade 2 and Grade 8

to▫high of .60 correlation between Grade 2 and Grade 4.

•Correlations between Grade 2 Math Assessment and high school End-of-Course tests in Algebra and Geometry are lower (about .48) but still show a relationship.

Summary of Grade 2 Math Assessment Data

•District performance on this assessment of place value understanding basically plateaued from 2002-09.

• In second year of Expressions, Grade 2 Assessment performance shifted upward and remained at higher level for three years.

Science

Science WASL/MSP Grade 5Percent Meeting Standard


District 35.2 40.2 42.3 32.0 60.3 65.3

State 36.5 43.0 44.9 34.0 55.7 66.3

Difference -1.3 -2.8 -2.6 -2.0 4.6 -1.0

1 Science KitImplemented in each grade

• 3 Science Kits implemented in each grade• 1st year of MTI

• Decreased Science Kits to 2• 1st year new state standards

tested• District Science PD on

Released Items• 1st year of Benchmark

• 2 Science Kits Implemented in each grade• 1st year of

Expressions

Reflection on Math and Science Results

•Think across the math and science data we have just seen and discussed. Remember that real-life data are typically somewhat messy!

•What surprises you in the data?•What fits with your expectations?•What are implications of the Math and Science

data for our work as a district? Please record this on your School Team Reflection sheet.

Final Team Reflection•Discuss with your school team how you will

share the big ideas from this data presentation with your staff.

•Please complete your School Team Reflection sheet and give to district staff.

elementary assessment data update edmonds school district january 2013

Documents