K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1...

29
K-PREP Data Sourcebook Richard G. Innes Staff Education Analyst Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions Revision 1 – December 1, 2012 Introduction Once again, Kentucky finds itself in the national spotlight for public school testing. The reason: new “Kentucky Performance Report for Educational Progress” (K-PREP) tests in elementary and middle school reading and mathematics are the first in the nation to be fully developed around the new Common Core State Standards. Those new standards have been adopted by more than 45 states, so Americans all across the country are anxious to see how these new standards and tests based on those standards actually perform. The math and reading scores from the K-PREP are only part of long-awaited results from Kentucky’s new public school assessment and accountability programs. The results from the K- PREP tests and the new “Unbridled Learning” school accountability program were long overdue when they were finally made public on November 2, 2012. People are asking questions like: “What do these new test scores show?” “Is Kentucky’s new program really more rigorous?” “Is there more rigor in each separate tested area of reading, math, science, social studies and writing?” “Is K-PREP rigorous enough in each of those areas?” “Is the new “Gap” calculation a suitable substitute for the protections minority students enjoyed under No Child Left Behind?” “Is Unbridled Learning so complex that scores will always be delayed?” And, perhaps most important, “Does scoring ‘Proficient’ on the new K-PREP really mean my child is on track to enter college and careers?” The newspapers already covered the basic school rankings from Unbridled Learning in reasonable detail, but – because the final Unbridled Learning accountability scores are far removed from the raw proficiency rate information – there is a need to dig deeper into what the new tests represent for individual students and their parents. Thus, instead of looking at the overall Unbridled Learning school accountability scores, which are based on very complex and

Transcript of K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1...

Page 1: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

K-PREP Data Sourcebook Richard G. Innes Staff Education Analyst Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions Revision 1 – December 1, 2012

Introduction Once again, Kentucky finds itself in the national spotlight for public school testing. The reason: new “Kentucky Performance Report for Educational Progress” (K-PREP) tests in elementary and middle school reading and mathematics are the first in the nation to be fully developed around the new Common Core State Standards. Those new standards have been adopted by more than 45 states, so Americans all across the country are anxious to see how these new standards and tests based on those standards actually perform. The math and reading scores from the K-PREP are only part of long-awaited results from Kentucky’s new public school assessment and accountability programs. The results from the K-PREP tests and the new “Unbridled Learning” school accountability program were long overdue when they were finally made public on November 2, 2012. People are asking questions like: “What do these new test scores show?” “Is Kentucky’s new program really more rigorous?” “Is there more rigor in each separate tested area of reading, math, science, social studies and writing?” “Is K-PREP rigorous enough in each of those areas?” “Is the new “Gap” calculation a suitable substitute for the protections minority students enjoyed under No Child Left Behind?” “Is Unbridled Learning so complex that scores will always be delayed?” And, perhaps most important, “Does scoring ‘Proficient’ on the new K-PREP really mean my child is on track to enter college and careers?” The newspapers already covered the basic school rankings from Unbridled Learning in reasonable detail, but – because the final Unbridled Learning accountability scores are far removed from the raw proficiency rate information – there is a need to dig deeper into what the new tests represent for individual students and their parents. Thus, instead of looking at the overall Unbridled Learning school accountability scores, which are based on very complex and

Page 2: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

sometimes confusing calculations, this source book concentrates on analysis of proficiency rate scores from K-PREP. The sourcebook also examines the serious question about performance gaps as they are reported by K-PREP as opposed to what Kentuckians used to get from the No Child Left Behind program. The sourcebook draws in part from individual blogs posted by the author in the Bluegrass Policy Blog starting on the official score release date of November 2, 2012. This will be a living document, growing as more analysis is completed on this important new assessment and accountability program. Readers are encouraged to check back in the future for updates.

Page 3: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

1

K-PREP Data Sourcebook Index Part 1 Score Comparisons to Other Tests ………………………………… 1 K-PREP compared to other assessments – is K-PREP rigorous enough?..................... 1 MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math…………………………………………………………….. 2 K-PREP middle school reading………………………………………………………….. 3 K-PREP middle school science…………………………………………………………... 4 K-PREP social studies……………………………………………………………………. 5 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-PREP elementary school math……………………………………………………….. 6 K-PREP elementary school reading…………………………………………………….. 6 About K-PREP elementary school science……………………………………………… 7 HIGH SCHOOLS K-PREP high school math……………………………………………………………….. 8 K-PREP high school reading……………………………………………………..………. 9 K-PREP high school science……………………………………………………………. 10 K-PREP science at all school levels…………………………………………………….. 11 Part 2 Achievement Gaps ..………………………………………………... 13 Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in elementary schools……………….…….….. 13 Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in middle schools…………………………..…. 16 Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in high schools…………………………..……. 18 District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Elementary School Level…20 District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Middle School Level………22 District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – High School Level…………24 Data Sources……………………………………………………………….. 26

Index

Page 4: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

1

Part 1 Score Comparisons to Other Tests K-PREP compared to other assessments – is K-PREP rigorous enough? This analysis package begins with examination of the closest available testing results from other tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and tests from the ACT, Inc. such as the ACT college entrance test and tests closely related to the ACT that are given to Kentucky’s eighth and tenth grade students. These comparisons explore the scoring rigor in the new K-PREP. Whenever possible, results from K-PREP are matched to the same year and grade level results from the other assessments. When that is not possible, comparisons are made using the most closely matched student cohorts available. To briefly overview the data in Part 1, Table 1 summarizes how K-PREP scoring compares to results from other testing programs that have value in predicting progress towards college and careers.

Table 1

Elementary School High School

MathematicsReading MixedScienceSocial Studies

K-PREP Seems On TargetK-PREP Rigor Seems Somewhat LowK-PREP No Different from CATS

Overview of the New K-PREP Proficiency Rate Scoring Rigor Compared to Other Testing from

NAEP and the ACT, Inc.

Middle School

As Table 1 shows, there are many areas where the new assessment’s scoring rigor appears somewhat to very far below the required level. In a disturbing surprise, there are a number of cases where the scores provided by the new K-PREP are essentially no different from the scores from the now disbanded CATS system. In fact, that is because the K-PREP science and social studies tests continue to use the old assessment standards from the now defunct CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT). While there is no comparison data to show if this is a problem in social studies because no comparison tests from ACT or NAEP are available, the lack of change in K-PREP science from the old KCCT’s rigor is a very serious issue. In essence, where the cells in Table 1 are colored bright red, Kentucky’s assessments remain locked into a CATS set of academic standards that many consider to be well below what is needed. Now, let’s start comparing the K-PREP results to other testing results for Kentucky’s students. We begin with eighth grade data because this grade offers the richest set of comparison testing available.

Page 5: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

2

MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to other test results available for our eighth grade students. The eighth grade K-PREP math test is very important both here in Kentucky and across the nation because it’s the first eighth grade test in the nation to incorporate the new Common Core State Standards into its development and scoring process.

Figure 1

Comparison of Test Performance in Middle School Math

30.5% 31%41.5%

59.7%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Percent 8thGraders Meeting

EXPLOREMathematics

Benchmark 2012

Percent 8thGraders Proficientor More in NAEP

Math 2011

Percent of 8thGraders Proficientor More in K-PREP

Math 2012

Percent of 8thGraders Proficientor More on KCCT

Math 2011

Perc

en

t P

rofi

cie

nt/

Meeti

ng

Ben

ch

mark

Notice that K-PREP eighth grade math proficiency rate is definitely lower than the proficiency rate score from last year’s KCCT math assessment. That indicates scoring rigor is tighter on K-PREP than under KCCT. However, while the K-PREP reported eighth grade math proficiency rate is notably lower than the old KCCT rate, the new K-PREP grade eight math proficiency rate is still more than 10 points higher than the proficiency rate for Kentucky’s public school students reported by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) one year ago. The new K-PREP proficiency rate is also more than 10 points higher than the percentage of the very same cohort of 2011-2012 Kentucky eighth graders that met the ACT’s EXPLORE test’s Benchmark Score for math (Note: Kentucky tests all eighth grade students with EXPLORE). Meeting that Benchmark score shows students are on track for solid success in high school and in follow-on college and career activities. So, while scoring on the K-PREP eighth grade math test appears to be considerably more rigorous than scoring from the state’s old assessment, K-PREP grade eight math scoring still may not be rigorous enough.

Page 6: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

3

K-PREP middle school reading Figure 2 compares the reading proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP eighth grade test to other test results available for our eighth grade students. Like the math test, this new eighth grade K-PREP reading test is very important here in Kentucky and across the nation because it is the first test to incorporate the new Common Core State Standards into its development and scoring process.

Figure 2

Comparison of Test Performance in Middle School Reading

42.2%36%

46.7%

71.4%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Percent 8th GradersMeeting EXPLOREReading Benchmark

2012

Percent 8th GradersProficient or More inNAEP Reading 2011

Percent of 8thGraders Proficient or

More in K-PREPReading 2012

Percent of 8thGraders Proficient or

More in KCCTReading 2011

Notice that K-PREP scoring is definitely lower than the proficiency rate score from last year’s KCCT, which indicates K-PREP eighth grade reading is being much more rigorously graded. Also, unlike the K-PREP eighth grade math test, the K-PREP eighth grade reading test scoring looks more in line with the proficiency rate reported by the EXPLORE test’s Benchmark Score performance, which showed 42.2 percent of the same cohort of Kentucky’s eighth grade students in 2012 on track for solid success in high school and in follow-on college and career activities. However, the picture becomes more muddled when we look at the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading performance from one year ago. K-PREP proficiency is more than 10 points higher than the percentage Kentucky’s eighth graders that met the NAEP reading proficiency standard one year earlier in 2011. Usually, at the state level, educational performance does not shift so dramatically in just one year. So, while the K-PREP eighth grade reading test is certainly more rigorous than the old CATS assessments, it might not be quite rigorous enough, although the picture looks better than the situation for K-PREP math. We need to mention one more point about K-PREP reading, and this applies at all grade levels. As was the case with the state’s now defunct KIRIS and CATS KCCT assessments, Kentucky’s educators continued to read the new K-PREP assessments to undoubtedly significant, though currently unreported, numbers of the state’s students with learning disabilities. This practice inflates all reading scores for Kentucky.

Page 7: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

4

As a consequence of the reading accommodation use in Kentucky, all of Kentucky’s reading scores from the NAEP from 1998 onward are also inflated, though by a somewhat different mechanism. In the case of NAEP, Kentucky’s students with disabilities have been excluded from taking the NAEP at very high rates compared to most other states because it is not permissible to read this federal assessment to such students. Instead, Kentucky students who have the reading accommodation are excluded from the NAEP. When significantly more students who are, as a group, going to score relatively low get excluded, the resulting score is inflated. This situation is well discussed in several Bluegrass Policy Blog (www.bipps.org/blog) items – search with the term “exclusion” to locate them. As a note, around 80 percent of the states in this country do not allow state reading assessments to be read to students. K-PREP middle school science Unlike the math and reading K-PREP tests, the K-PREP science tests have not been written to new national standards for the very simple reason that such standards are still in development and have not been approved and released. In fact, as we start to show here, the new K-PREP science tests look like warmed over CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT) right down to the obviously inflated scoring. Figure 3 compares the science proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP seventh grade test to other science test results available for Kentucky’s middle school students.

Figure 3

Comparison of Test Performance in Middle School Science

14.2%

34%

61.70% 64.04%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Percent 8th GradersMeeting EXPLOREScience Benchmark

2012

Percent 8th GradersProficient or More inNAEP Science 2011

Percent of 7thGraders Proficient or

More in K-PREPScience 2012

Percent of 7thGraders Proficient or

More in KCCTScience 2011

Notice that the K-PREP science proficiency rate for seventh grade students is hardly lower than the proficiency rate score from last year’s KCCT. This is VERY different from the K-PREP math and reading situation. Also notice that the best comparison data available, which is from eighth grade science testing from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the ACT, Inc.’s EXPLORE, strongly indicate that if K-PREP science results were to be aligned to what students really need

Page 8: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

5

to know in this area, the proficiency rates reported would be much lower than the 61.70 percent rate reported. Therefore, it appears that K-PREP science, at least at the middle school level, still suffers from the excessive inflation in scoring that plagued – and ultimately doomed – the CATS assessments. This implies the overall scores from the Unbridled Learning accountability program for middle schools are inflated, as well. K-PREP social studies Unlike the math and reading K-PREP tests, the K-PREP social studies tests have not been written to new national standards for a very simple reason – no such standards currently exist. Unfortunately, there are no comparison test results from either the NAEP or EXPLORE, etc. that cover the social studies area. So, Figure 4 is different from the ones already presented. Instead, this graph compares the social studies proficiency rates for all three school levels, elementary, middle and high school, for the new K-PREP social studies tests and the old CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests in social studies.

Figure 4

Percent Proficient on Social Studies on K-PREP in 2012 and on CATS KCCT in 2011

59.8% 59.8% 58.6% 60.1%

39.5% 41.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent of 5thGraders

Proficient orMore in K-

PREP SocialStudies 2012

Percent 5thGraders

Proficient orMore on KCCTSocial Studies

2011

Percent of 8thGraders

Proficient orMore in K-

PREP SocialStudies 2012

Percent 8thGraders

Proficient orMore on KCCTSocial Studies

2011

Percent ofHigh Schoolers

Proficient orMore in K-

PREP SocialStudies 2012

Percent 11thGraders

Proficient orMore on KCCTSocial Studies

2011 As you can see, there is a very consistent pattern. Essentially, the K-PREP social studies tests have returned virtually identical proficiency rate scores to those from the last year of KCCT testing. We have no way to determine if these new K-PREP scores for social studies are inflated, but we now definitely know that the K-PREP social studies scores are not different from the KCCT tests. Since the science K-PREP and the social studies results are not significantly different from the old KCCT tests, the overall impact on school scores in the state’s new Unbridled Learning school accountability system is not as significant as earlier reports from the Kentucky Department of Education tended to imply. By the way, this blending of data for different school levels provides a nice segue into the next section, which looks at specific comparison data for elementary schools.

Page 9: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

6

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-PREP elementary school math On a bright note, it looks like K-PREP math scoring for Kentucky’s fourth grade students may be dead on target compared to the highly respected NAEP math results from one year ago.

Figure 5

Comparison of Test Performance in Elementary School Math

39% 39.6%

74.7%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Percent 4th GradersProficient or More in

NAEP Math 2011

Percent of 4thGraders Proficient orMore in K-PREP Math

2012

Percent 4th GradersProficient or More on

KCCT Math 2011

Perc

en

t P

roficie

nt/M

et B

en

ch

mar

So, unlike the situation for middle school math, K-PREP math scoring standards for elementary schools may be set very well. Of course, we really need to look at the trends over time as more NAEP and K-PREP math scores become available to be certain K-PREP is set correctly. Will K-PREP scoring get easier over time and thereby inflate the scores, or will the K-PREP elementary school math results remain aligned with NAEP? Only time will tell, but in this subject and grade level, we have a good start. K-PREP elementary school reading While the elementary school K-PREP math scoring, at least at the fourth grade level, appears to be well aligned to the NAEP fourth grade math standards, we now will see that good news does not hold for reading.

Page 10: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

7

Figure 6

Comparison of Test Performance in Elementary School Reading

35%

47.0%

73.5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Percent 4th GradersProficient or More inNAEP Reading 2011

Percent of 4thGraders Proficient or

More in K-PREPReading 2012

Percent 4th GradersProficient or More

KCCT Reading 2011

Perc

en

t P

roficie

nt/M

et B

ench

mar

Unlike the elementary school math K-PREP, the K-PREP reading assessment at the fourth grade level returned a notably higher reading proficiency rate than Kentucky’s proficiency rate from the latest NAEP fourth grade reading assessment. Thus, while the K-PREP elementary school reading standards appear tighter than those from the CATS KCCT, they still might not be rigorous enough. This is an important discovery because the elementary school K-PREP tests are supposedly aligned to the national Common Core State Standards. Can it be those national standards for elementary school reading are also set to too low a level of rigor? Once again, it must be mentioned that all Kentucky reading results are inflated to an unknown degree because significant percentages of Kentucky’s students with learning disabilities have the reading assessments read to them. These special students only get a spoken word comprehension test, but the state reports their test results as though they are in every way comparable to results for other students who take Kentucky’s reading tests as true printed text decoding and comprehension exams. About K-PREP elementary school science NAEP’s latest 4th grade science results for Kentucky are from 2009. That is somewhat dated data compared to the 2012 K-PREP, so no graph was developed. For those who are interested, in 2009 Kentucky’s NAEP Fourth Grade Science proficiency rate was 45 percent for all students. K-PREP reported a fourth grade science proficiency rate in 2012 of 68.8 percent, obviously much higher. In 2011, CATS KCCT reported a fourth grade science proficiency rate of 70.53 percent. There is thus an indication that K-PREP elementary school science is currently just warmed over CATS.

Page 11: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

8

HIGH SCHOOLS K-PREP high school math K-PREP test data in math in Kentucky’s high schools does not come from state-developed tests. Instead, the data come from new end-of-course exams developed by the ACT, Inc., called ACT Quality Core tests. For K-PREP, the Quality Core test used for accountability is the Algebra II test. This graph shows how proficiency rates compare between the K-PREP Algebra II end-of-course exam and the results from the ACT college entrance testing for Kentucky’s 11th grade students in 2012 and the results from the previous math test in Kentucky, the CATS Kentucky Core Content Test, also given to 11th grade students.

Figure 7

Comparison of Test Performance in High School Math

38.6% 40.0%46.0%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Percent 11th GradersMeeting CPE's ACT

MathematicsBenchmark 2012

Percent Proficient orMore in K-PREP Math

2012

Percent 11th GradersProficient or More on

KCCT Math 2011

Pe

rce

nt

Pro

fic

ien

t/M

et

Be

nc

hm

First, note that, quite unlike earlier KCCT results we’ve discussed, there isn’t a particularly large a difference between the proficiency rates from the old KCCT high school math test and the percentage of students that meet or exceeded the ACT Benchmark Score set by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). That CPE Benchmark is the performance level where students don’t have to take a remedial math course upon entering the state’s public postsecondary education system. Also, note that the new K-PREP math results are essentially equivalent to that CPE ACT Benchmark performance for math. So, for high school purposes, the ACT Quality Core test in Algebra II appears to be scored right on target to give a good indication that students are on track for college and careers. That’s not surprising given the ACT, Inc.’s well known focus and expertise on what it takes to succeed in college.

Page 12: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

9

It should be noted that the ACT Quality Core tests in math may or may not be specifically aligned to the new Common Core State Standards at this time. However, college and careers is also supposed to be the CCSS focus, so close alignment may actually already be present. K-PREP high school reading K-PREP test data in reading for our high school students does not come from a state-developed tests. Instead, the reading score is derived from performance on a new end-of-course exam in English II developed by the ACT, Inc., as part of the ACT’s Quality Core tests. This graph shows how proficiency rates compare between the K-PREP end-of-course exam used for reading scoring and the results from ACT college entrance testing for Kentucky’s 11th grade students in 2012. I also show the results from the KCCT, which was given to 10th grade students.

Figure 8

Comparison of Test Performance in High School Reading

41.9%52.20%

65.90%

0.0%10.0%20.0%30.0%40.0%50.0%60.0%70.0%80.0%90.0%

100.0%

Percent 11th GradersMeeting CPE's ACTReading Benchmark

2012

Percent Proficient orMore in K-PREP

Reading 2012

Percent 10th GradersProficient or More

KCCT Reading 2011

Pe

rce

nt

Pro

fic

ien

t/M

et

Be

nc

hm

In this graph, as opposed to what is found for high school math, we see the more typical pattern of the KCCT results being notably higher than the new K-PREP scores and the K-PREP results also notably higher than the ACT Benchmark percentages. This again raises concerns that while the test used for K-PREP reading in high school is more rigorous than the old KCCT, the level of rigor still may not be high enough. As was true with the high school math K-PREP test, the ACT Quality Core tests in language arts areas may or may not be specifically aligned to the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at this time. However, college and careers is also supposed to be the CCSS focus, so close alignment may actually already be present.

Page 13: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

10

K-PREP high school science As with the other high school tests, K-PREP science scores for our high school students also do not come from a state-developed test. Instead, the high school science score is derived from performance on a new end-of-course exam in high school biology developed by the ACT, Inc., as part of the ACT’s Quality Core tests. Figure 9 shows how proficiency rates compare between the K-PREP end-of-course high school science assessment and the Benchmark Score results from ACT’s PLAN test given to Kentucky’s 10th grade students in the 2011-2012 school year. We use PLAN for this comparison because the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education does not provide an ACT Benchmark Score in science, so the Kentucky Department of Education’s data does not include a science benchmark statistic for the ACT. The PLAN Benchmark Score is linked to Benchmark Scores developed by the ACT, Inc. for the ACT test. Scoring at or above the ACT Benchmarks, which are developed from a survey of colleges to ascertain true student performance, indicates students have a 75 percent chance of passing their first related college course in science. The PLAN Benchmark Score performance shown in this graph indicates the proportion of Kentucky students in the 10th grade that are on track to do well in following high school science courses that in turn will prepare those students to succeed in postsecondary education.

Figure 9

Comparison of Test Performance in High School Science

21.1%

30.30%

41.37%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent 10th GradersMeeting Science PLAN

Benchmark 2012

Percent High SchoolersProficient or More in K-

PREP Science 2012

Percent 11th GradersProficient or More

KCCT Science 2011

Perc

en

t P

roficie

nt/M

eetin

g B

en

ch

mar

Yet again, the fairly typical patterns found in most of our examples from the elementary and middle schools are repeated. The PLAN Science Benchmark performance is notably lower than the new K-PREP performance, but the K-PREP performance is notably lower than the performance from the last year of high school KCCT science testing. This again raises the question of whether the rigor in the K-PREP scoring is high enough.

Page 14: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

11

K-PREP science at all school levels As we discussed in earlier comments about social studies, we also find disturbing evidence that the new K-PREP science assessments for elementary and middle schools are nothing more than warmed over CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT). Figure 10 makes that clear.

Figure 10

Percent Proficient on Science on K-PREP in 2012 and on CAT S KCCT in 2011

68.8% 70.5%61.8% 64.0%

30.3%

41.4%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

Percent of 4thGraders

Proficient or

More in K-PREP Science

2012

Percent 4thGraders

Proficient or

More on KCCTScience 2011

Percent of 7thGraders

Proficient or

More in K-PREP Science

2012

Percent 7thGraders

Proficient or

More on KCCTScience 2011

Percent ofHigh Schoolers

Proficient or

More in K-PREP Science

2012

Percent 11thGraders

Proficient or

More on KCCTScience 2011

This is particularly disturbing because Senate Bill 1 from the 2009 Regular Legislative Session (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/09rs/SB1/bill.doc), which led to the creation of K-PREP, stipulates on Page 4 that academic content standards would be revised by now in all key academic subjects, science definitely included. The revised standards would, “Focus on critical knowledge, skills, and capacities needed for success in the global economy.” The law continues by saying the responsible agencies are to “Ensure that the standards are aligned from elementary to high school to postsecondary education so that students can be successful at each education level.” On Page 6, the law requires all changes to be promulgated by January 15, 2011. On Page 7, the law says, “Using the revised academic standards developed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the board shall revise the annual statewide assessment program for implementation in the 2011-2012 academic year.” Well, it does not look like that happened in K-PREP science, or in social studies, either.

Page 15: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

12

Because the standards for science and social studies seem unchanged from CATS, that makes the new K-PREP scores in those areas no more trustworthy than those old CATS scores were. Parents and students need to be aware of this and should be cautious about relying on K-PREP scores as accurate indications of academic preparation in these subject areas.

Page 16: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

13

Part 2 Achievement Gaps Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in elementary schools One of the biggest concerns about the new K-PREP program is a loss of the level of protection afforded to minorities under the now waived No Child Left Behind school accountability program. While the new Unbridled Learning accountability program does include an element that looks at achievement gaps, it does so by lumping all minorities and special students into one overall calculation. That can leave student subgroups behind. The data shown below for elementary schools indicates that racial achievement gaps remain a problem. Figure 11 shows the elementary school gaps in white to African-American and White to Hispanic reading proficiency rates (the combined percentage of students scored “Proficient” and “Distinguished”) for the new K-PREP and the now defunct Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT) from one year earlier. The data is broken down by grade. To read this table, the first bar on the left shows the gap in proficiency rates for whites and African-Americans in third grade reading was 24.9 percent on K-PREP. The red bar immediately to the right of the first bar shows that last year the white to African-American reading proficiency gap in the third grade reported by the KCCT was notably lower, at 20.3 percent.

Figure 11

Overall, with the change to K-PREP the achievement gaps grew for every combination shown on the reading graph.

Page 17: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

14

Figure 12 is a similar graph for the elementary school white to black and white to Hispanic mathematics achievement gaps.

Figure 12

The racial gap situation is only slightly better for math. The grade 3 white to African-Americans gap stayed nearly constant. The grade 5 white to African-Americans gap showed notable improvement. However, in all the other sets of data shown, the gaps grew with the introduction of K-PREP.

Page 18: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

15

For those who like their data in tables, here it is for elementary school reading and math gaps:

Table 2

Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Elementary School Reading, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011

SCH YEAR

DIST NAME

CONTENT LEVEL

CONTENT TYPE

GRADE LEVEL

DISAGG LABEL K-PREP READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012

KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 3 African American 28 63.06

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 3 Hispanic 37.8 72.63

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 3 White (Non Hispanic) 52.9 83.38

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 4 African American 26.5 53.63

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 4 Hispanic 36.1 67.15

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 4 White (Non Hispanic) 50.5 76.43

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 5 African American 28 57.52

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 5 Hispanic 37.4 69.6

20112012 State Elementary School Reading 5 White (Non Hispanic) 50.4 76.45

GAPS

3 White - Afr. Amer. 24.9 20.32

3 White - Hispanic 15.1 10.75

4 White - Afr. Amer. 24.0 22.80

4 White - Hispanic 14.4 9.28

5 White - Afr. Amer. 22.4 18.93

5 White - Hispanic 13.0 6.85

Table 3

Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Elementary School Math, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011

SCH YEAR

DIST NAME

CONTENT LEVEL

CONTENT TYPE

GRADE LEVEL

DISAGG LABEL K-PREP MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012

KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 3 African American 25.2 60.00

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 3 Hispanic 33.1 70.90

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 3 White (Non Hispanic) 45.5 80.49

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 4 African American 21.3 57.68

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 4 Hispanic 28.0 68.71

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 4 White (Non Hispanic) 42.5 77.23

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 5 African American 20.6 45.32

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 5 Hispanic 30.3 60.16

20112012 State Elementary School Mathematics 5 White (Non Hispanic) 41.4 68.84

GAPS

3 White - Afr. Amer. 20.3 20.49

3 White - Hispanic 12.4 9.59

4 White - Afr. Amer. 21.2 19.55

4 White - Hispanic 14.5 8.52

5 White - Afr. Amer. 20.8 23.52

5 White - Hispanic 11.1 8.68

Page 19: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

16

Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in middle schools As we found in the elementary schools, the K-PREP white to black and white to Hispanic reading proficiency rate gaps grew in every middle school grade from the gaps in the last year of the KCCT.

Figure 13

Achievement Gaps from K-PREP and CATS KCCT, Middle School Reading, by Grade Level

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

Wh

ite -

Afr

.A

mer.

Wh

ite

-H

isp

an

ic

Wh

ite -

Afr

.A

mer.

Wh

ite

-H

isp

an

ic

Wh

ite -

Afr

.A

mer.

Wh

ite

-H

isp

an

ic6 6 7 7 8 8

Pro

ficie

ncy R

ate

Gap

, Perc

en

GAP, K-PREPREAD PCTPROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED 2012

GAP, KCCTREAD PCTPROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED 2011

GRADE

The situation is more varied for middle school math achievement gaps, but the gaps remain significant.

Figure 14

Achievement Gaps from K-PREP and CATS KCCT, Middle School Math, by Grade Level

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Wh

ite -

Afr

.A

mer.

Wh

ite -

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite -

Afr

.A

mer.

Wh

ite -

His

pan

ic

Wh

ite -

Afr

.A

mer.

Wh

ite -

His

pan

ic

6 6 7 7 8 8

Pro

fici

ency

Rat

e G

ap, P

erce

n

GAP, K-PREPMATH PCTPROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED2012

GAP, KCCT MATHPCT PROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED2011

GRADE

Page 20: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

17

Here are the middle school achievement gap data tables.

Table 4

Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Middle School Reading, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011

SCH YEAR

DIST NAME

CONTENT LEVEL

CONTENT TYPE

GRADE LEVEL

DISAGG LABEL K-PREP READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012

KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011

20112012 State Middle School Reading 6 African American 25.7 51.95

20112012 State Middle School Reading 6 Hispanic 35.6 63.86

20112012 State Middle School Reading 6 White (Non Hispanic) 49.1 74.45

20112012 State Middle School Reading 7 African American 26.8 48.11

20112012 State Middle School Reading 7 Hispanic 36.5 61.56

20112012 State Middle School Reading 7 White (Non Hispanic) 50.9 69.36

20112012 State Middle School Reading 8 African American 25.1 52.94

20112012 State Middle School Reading 8 Hispanic 37.5 64.54

20112012 State Middle School Reading 8 White (Non Hispanic) 49.9 73.98

GAPS

6 White - Afr. Amer. 23.4 22.50

6 White - Hispanic 13.5 10.59

7 White - Afr. Amer. 24.1 21.25

7 White - Hispanic 14.4 7.80

8 White - Afr. Amer. 24.8 21.04

8 White - Hispanic 12.4 9.44

Table 5

Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Middle School Math, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011

SCH YEAR

DIST NAME

CONTENT LEVEL

CONTENT TYPE

GRADE LEVEL

DISAGG LABEL K-PREP MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012

KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 6 African American 20.7 47.16

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 6 Hispanic 31 63.01

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 6 White (Non Hispanic) 44.8 72.99

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 7 African American 17.9 40.76

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 7 Hispanic 29.2 57.51

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 7 White (Non Hispanic) 41.5 69.05

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 8 African American 22.1 35.31

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 8 Hispanic 34.1 50.60

20112012 State Middle School Mathematics 8 White (Non Hispanic) 44.2 63.17

GAPS

6 White - Afr. Amer. 24.1 25.83

6 White - Hispanic 13.8 9.98

7 White - Afr. Amer. 23.6 28.29

7 White - Hispanic 12.3 11.54

8 White - Afr. Amer. 22.1 27.86

8 White - Hispanic 10.1 12.57

Page 21: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

18

Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in high schools As previously mentioned, the K-PREP reading and math data for high schools does not come from new state-developed tests that are fully aligned to the Common Core State Standards. Instead, Kentucky is using ACT Quality Core tests in English II (which is counted as the state’s reading score) and Algebra II. Also, while the general case is that each student will take these tests only once in high school, the time when a student takes the test is determined by individual student progression and is not strictly aligned to a specific grade. So, the term “EOC” appears on the grade line in the tables below. The KCCT in reading was given only to grade 10 students.

Figure 15

Achievement Gaps from K-PREP (Based on End-of-Course English II) and CATS KCCT, High School Reading

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic

EOC/10 EOC/10

Pro

fici

ency

Rat

e G

ap, P

erce

n

GAP, K-PREPEnglish IIREAD PCTPROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED 2012

GAP, KCCTREAD PCTPROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED 2011

GRADE

As was true in the lower school levels, the gaps have notably grown in reading with the change to K-PREP’s end-of-course exam program. The trend was in the opposite direction in math, however.

Figure 16

Achievement Gaps from K-PREP (End-of-Course Algebra II) and CATS KCCT, High School Math

0

5

10

15

20

25

White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic

EOC/11 EOC/11

Pro

fici

ency

Rat

e G

ap, P

erce

n

GAP, K-PREPAlgebra II MATHPCT PROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED2012

GAP, KCCT MATHPCT PROFICIENTDISTINGUISHED2011

GRADE

Page 22: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

19

Here is the high school data in table format.

Table 6

Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for High School Reading (End-of-Course English II), K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011

SCH YEAR DIST NAME

CONTENT LEVEL

CONTENT TYPE

GRADE LEVEL

DISAGG LABEL K-PREP English II READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012

KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011

20112012 State High School Reading EOC/10 African American 31.8 50.13

20112012 State High School Reading EOC/10 Hispanic 41.4 60.98

20112012 State High School Reading EOC/10 White (Non Hispanic) 55.3 68.23

GAPS

EOC/10 White - Afr. Amer. 23.5 18.10

EOC/10 White - Hispanic 13.9 7.25

Table 7

Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for High School Math, K-PREP (End-of-Course Algebra II) in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011

SCH YEAR DIST NAME

CONTENT LEVEL

CONTENT TYPE

GRADE LEVEL

DISAGG LABEL K-PREP Algebra II MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012

KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011

20112012 State High School Mathematics EOC/11 African American 24.4 28.10

20112012 State High School Mathematics EOC/11 Hispanic 35.1 38.74

20112012 State High School Mathematics EOC/11 White (Non Hispanic) 42.1 48.18

GAPS

EOC/11 White - Afr. Amer. 17.7 20.08

EOC/11 White - Hispanic 7.0 9.44

Page 23: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

20

District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Elementary School Level Table 8 shows district-level mathematics proficiency rate achievement gaps for whites minus blacks at the elementary school level. The proficiency rates were developed by averaging the individual grade proficiency rates for grades 3, 4 and 5 together. Where data was missing for some grades, the available data was averaged together, and the cells with such data are shaded in yellow. Only districts that had both white and black data reported are shown. Notice that the very top district listed, Murray Independent, was classified as a “Distinguished” “District of Distinction.” The district’s severe white versus black performance gap was not identified by Unbridled Learning. Not far behind Murray, a number of districts were rated “Proficient” and face no sanctions (and will get no assistance, either) despite white minus black math proficiency achievement gaps of at least 25 percentage points. Districts ranked at #3 and #4 on the listing have extremely low black proficiency rates, as well, well below the average for all the districts shown. Perhaps most remarkable, the districts that were identified as “Focus Districts” have some of the lowest achievement gaps and appear near the bottom of the table. Of special interest, near the very bottom of the elementary school district listing is Union County. Their black and white proficiency rates are nearly equal, and the black rate is way above the average for all the listed districts. Move up the table a bit to Caldwell County. Its black proficiency rate is well below Union County’s while its white rate is scarcely higher than Union County’s. However, Caldwell ranks in the top 70% of all districts in the state per Unbridled Learning, while Union “Needs Improvement.” Really? Or, check out Trigg County. It’s white minus black math proficiency rate only differs by 10 points, but Trigg’s proficiency rates for both races are well above those for Caldwell. Still, Unbridled Learning tells us that it’s Trigg that “Needs Improvement.”

Table 8 District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate

Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Elementary School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year

DISTRICT NAME Black Simple

Average Proficiency

Rate

White Simple

Average Proficiency

Rate

GAP Rank on Gap

CLASSIFICATION REWARD RECOGNITION

Murray Independent 25.0 69.3 44.3 1 Distinguished District of Distinction

Paducah Independent 19.8 55.7 35.9 2 Needs Improvement

Bowling Green Independent 18.2 52.0 33.8 3 Proficient

Woodford County 19.8 52.8 33.0 4 Proficient

Fayette County 25.9 58.1 32.1 5 Needs Improvement

Shelby County 23.5 52.5 28.9 6 Needs Improvement

Glasgow Independent 15.5 43.1 27.6 7 Proficient

Muhlenberg County 20.9 47.5 26.7 8 Needs Improvement

Page 24: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

21

District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for

Elementary School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year (Cont.) DISTRICT NAME Black

Simple Average

Proficiency Rate

White Simple

Average Proficiency

Rate

GAP Rank on Gap

CLASSIFICATION REWARD RECOGNITION

Scott County 24.9 51.5 26.6 9 Proficient

Montgomery County 23.8 49.8 26.1 10 Proficient

Elizabethtown Independent 23.2 48.6 25.4 11 Proficient

Pike County 10.0 35.2 25.2 12 Needs Improvement

McCracken County 24.3 49.4 25.0 13 Proficient

Daviess County 29.3 54.3 25.0 14 Proficient

Oldham County 26.9 51.8 24.9 15 Distinguished District of Distinction

Jefferson County 20.4 45.1 24.7 16 Needs Improvement

Simpson County 22.8 47.3 24.6 17 Needs Improvement

Boone County 26.8 51.1 24.3 18 Proficient

Washington County 14.7 37.7 23.0 19 Needs Improvement

Frankfort Independent 13.6 35.8 22.2 20 Needs Improvement

Clark County 26.6 48.8 22.1 21 Needs Improvement

Warren County 20.4 42.4 21.9 22 Needs Improvement

Mason County 24.6 45.2 20.6 23 Needs Improvement

Paris Independent 19.0 39.4 20.4 24 Needs Improvement

Mayfield Independent 22.7 42.6 19.9 25 Needs Improvement

Christian County 25.7 45.5 19.8 26 Needs Improvement

Todd County 30.5 50.2 19.7 27 Needs Improvement

Hopkins County 27.8 47.4 19.6 28 Needs Improvement

Hardin County 27.6 47.2 19.6 29 Needs Improvement

Danville Independent 31.4 50.8 19.4 30 Needs Improvement

Madison County 23.9 41.6 17.7 31 Needs Improvement

Jessamine County 21.2 38.7 17.4 32 Needs Improvement

Caldwell County 22.3 39.7 17.4 33 Proficient

Henderson County 34.4 51.2 16.8 34 Needs Improvement

Marion County 31.8 48.6 16.7 35 Needs Improvement

Erlanger-Elsmere Independent 28.2 43.9 15.7 36 Needs Improvement

Campbellsville Independent 17.5 31.4 13.9 37 Needs Improvement

Franklin County 27.7 41.1 13.5 38 Needs Improvement

Bardstown Independent 15.9 29.1 13.2 39 Needs Improvement

Mercer County 20.0 31.9 11.9 40 Needs Improvement

Fulton County 8.9 20.7 11.8 41 Needs Improvement Focus District

Kenton County 40.6 52.1 11.5 42 Proficient

Newport Independent 7.7 18.9 11.2 43 Needs Improvement Focus District

Covington Independent 15.8 26.3 10.5 44 Needs Improvement Focus District

Trigg County 41.7 51.7 10.1 45 Needs Improvement

Bullitt County 31.6 41.3 9.8 46 Needs Improvement

Owensboro Independent 23.4 33.1 9.7 47 Needs Improvement Focus District

Russellville Independent 24.0 32.0 8.0 48 Needs Improvement Focus District

Union County 36.8 38.8 2.0 49 Needs Improvement

Fulton Independent 30.7 17.6 -13.1 50 Needs Improvement Focus District

Simple Averages 23.8 43.5 19.8

Indicates data for some grades missing, available data was averaged 

Only includes districts with both black and white data available   

Page 25: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

22

District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Middle School Level Table 9 is similar to the previous table and shows the achievement gaps for middle school students (Grades 6, 7 and 8 averaged together) show a somewhat more varied pattern of gap size versus Unbridled Learning district classification. However, inspection of Table 9 shows that Unbridled Learning is not sensitive to white minus black math proficiency rate gaps at this school level, either. Notice that the two top gap school districts are both rated “Proficient” although their black math proficiency rates in math are well below the average for all the middle schools shown.

Table 9 District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Middle

School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year

DISTRICT NAME Black Simple

Average Proficiency

Rate

White Simple

Average Proficiency

Rate

GAP Rank on

Gap

Classification Reward Recognition

LaRue County 15.4 55.9 40.5 1 Proficient

Caldwell County 16.7 57.2 40.5 2 Proficient

Fayette County 24.9 60.7 35.9 3 Needs Improvement

Fulton County 0.0 35.1 35.1 4 Needs Improvement Focus District

Glasgow Independent 29.9 62.8 32.9 5 Proficient

Fulton Independent 10.1 40.9 30.9 6 Needs Improvement Focus District

Paducah Independent 20.3 50.9 30.6 7 Needs Improvement

Washington County 7.9 38.2 30.3 8 Needs Improvement

Oldham County 31.0 60.7 29.7 9 Distinguished District of Distinction

Woodford County 16.7 45.8 29.1 10 Proficient

McCracken County 23.6 52.4 28.8 11 Proficient

Meade County 27.3 54.9 27.6 12 Distinguished High Performing District

Warren County 22.9 49.8 26.9 13 Needs Improvement

Shelby County 16.1 43.0 26.9 14 Needs Improvement

Muhlenberg County 14.5 40.2 25.7 15 Needs Improvement

Bullitt County 16.8 42.0 25.3 16 Needs Improvement

Jefferson County 17.5 42.4 24.9 17 Needs Improvement

Ashland Independent 16.7 41.3 24.6 18 Proficient

Elizabethtown Independent

19.2 43.1 24.0 19 Proficient

Scott County 22.7 46.5 23.8 20 Proficient

Boone County 31.5 54.7 23.2 21 Proficient

Bowling Green Independent

32.5 55.6 23.1 22 Proficient

Mason County 26.9 49.9 23.0 23 Needs Improvement

Jessamine County 15.7 38.5 22.7 24 Needs Improvement

Daviess County 25.9 48.5 22.6 25 Proficient

Trigg County 20.0 42.6 22.6 26 Needs Improvement

Hopkins County 19.4 41.2 21.8 27 Needs Improvement

Union County 18.9 40.6 21.7 28 Needs Improvement

Page 26: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

23

District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Middle

School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year (Cont.) DISTRICT NAME Black

Simple Average

Proficiency Rate

White Simple

Average Proficiency

Rate

GAP Rank on

Gap

Classification Reward Recognition

Todd County 21.2 42.6 21.5 29 Needs Improvement

Christian County 17.5 38.9 21.4 30 Needs Improvement

Russellville Independent

10.7 31.8 21.1 31 Needs Improvement Focus District

Danville Independent 15.5 36.1 20.5 32 Needs Improvement

Bardstown Independent

14.1 34.3 20.2 33 Needs Improvement

Simpson County 19.3 39.0 19.7 34 Needs Improvement

Bourbon County 23.1 42.5 19.4 35 Needs Improvement

Henderson County 22.7 41.7 19.0 36 Needs Improvement

Hardin County 26.8 45.8 19.0 37 Needs Improvement

Owensboro Independent

17.1 34.8 17.7 38 Needs Improvement Focus District

Harlan County 18.2 35.8 17.6 39 Needs Improvement

Murray Independent 55.8 68.8 13.0 40 Distinguished District of Distinction

Newport Independent 12.9 24.8 11.9 41 Needs Improvement Focus District

Marion County 40.2 52.0 11.8 42 Needs Improvement

Franklin County 22.9 34.4 11.5 43 Needs Improvement

Clark County 39.9 51.0 11.1 44 Needs Improvement

Madison County 34.0 44.7 10.7 45 Needs Improvement

Mayfield Independent 28.3 38.8 10.6 46 Needs Improvement

Kenton County 37.3 46.6 9.4 47 Proficient

Erlanger-Elsmere Independent

14.0 21.5 7.6 48 Needs Improvement

Campbellsville Independent

39.6 46.0 6.4 49 Needs Improvement

Paris Independent 10.4 16.8 6.4 50 Needs Improvement

Pulaski County 40.0 45.0 5.0 51 Distinguished High Performing District

Covington Independent 10.6 15.4 4.8 52 Needs Improvement Focus District

Mercer County 30.0 32.9 2.9 53 Needs Improvement

Frankfort Independent 37.5 38.1 0.6 54 Needs Improvement

Montgomery County 38.5 33.6 -4.9 55 Proficient

Simple Averages 22.9 43.1 20.2

Indicates data for some grades missing, available data was averaged Only includes districts with both black and white data available

Page 27: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

24

District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – High School Level The pattern of gaps versus performance in Table 10 is somewhat similar to the pattern in Table 9, with various Unbridled Learning classifications scattered throughout. Unlike Table 8 and 9, however, the data in Table 10 comes from the Algebra II end-of-course exams instead of grade-by-grade K-PREP testing. McCracken County is worthy of particular notice. While ranking at #5 for its math gap, this district was awarded an Unbridled Learning classification of “Proficient,” indicating it performs better than 70 percent of all the districts. Never the less, this district had a zero proficiency rate for blacks yet escaped “Focus District” status. There were 16 African-American students in the Algebra II tested pool for this district in 2012. That is a rather large number to not have even one student score proficient. Two other districts in Table 10 have a zero proficiency rate for blacks on Algebra II, as well, but neither is a “Focus District.”

Table 10 District White and Black Algebra II Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate

Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for High Schools, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year

District Name Black Proficiency Rate

White Proficiency Rate

GAP Rank on Gap

Classification Reward Recognition

Paducah Independent 8.0 56.9 48.9 1 Needs Improvement

Bowling Green Independent 23.1 68.7 45.6 2 Proficient

Woodford County 22.2 65.5 43.3 3 Proficient

Marion County 5.3 46.0 40.7 4 Needs Improvement

McCracken County 0.0 40.4 40.4 5 Proficient

Bourbon County 20.0 58.2 38.2 6 Needs Improvement

Fayette County 21.0 58.3 37.3 7 Needs Improvement

Jessamine County 20.0 52.1 32.1 8 Needs Improvement

Scott County 12.9 43.3 30.4 9 Proficient

Glasgow Independent 27.3 55.1 27.8 10 Proficient

Jefferson County 28.4 55.7 27.3 11 Needs Improvement

Graves County 18.2 45.0 26.8 12 Proficient

Clark County 7.4 33.9 26.5 13 Needs Improvement

Elizabethtown Independent 24.0 50.3 26.3 14 Proficient

Simpson County 23.3 48.3 25.0 15 Needs Improvement

Russellville Independent 12.5 37.2 24.7 16 Needs Improvement Focus District

Oldham County 28.1 52.3 24.2 17 Distinguished District of Distinction

Mayfield Independent 29.2 51.6 22.4 18 Needs Improvement

Warren County 26.4 48.8 22.4 19 Needs Improvement

Paris Independent 23.5 45.7 22.2 20 Needs Improvement

Fulton County 7.1 28.9 21.8 21 Needs Improvement Focus District

Frankfort Independent 27.8 48.8 21.0 22 Needs Improvement

Meade County 20.0 40.9 20.9 23 Distinguished High Performing District

Logan County 18.2 39.0 20.8 24 Proficient

Page 28: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

25

District White and Black Algebra II Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for High

Schools, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year (Cont.) District Name Black

Proficiency Rate

White Proficiency Rate

GAP Rank on Gap

Classification Reward Recognition

Shelby County 8.2 28.5 20.3 25 Needs Improvement

Boone County 34.1 54.1 20.0 26 Proficient

Hardin County 19.5 38.8 19.3 27 Needs Improvement

Newport Independent 9.1 28.4 19.3 28 Needs Improvement Focus District

Madison County 26.1 45.2 19.1 29 Needs Improvement

Erlanger-Elsmere Independent 15.4 34.4 19.0 30 Needs Improvement

Christian County 22.2 41.1 18.9 31 Needs Improvement

Hopkins County 34.7 53.4 18.7 32 Needs Improvement

Trigg County 19.0 35.9 16.9 33 Needs Improvement

Muhlenberg County 0.0 15.8 15.8 34 Needs Improvement

Fulton Independent 6.7 21.7 15.0 35 Needs Improvement Focus District

Danville Independent 33.3 47.3 14.0 36 Needs Improvement

Ashland Independent 30.8 41.6 10.8 37 Proficient

Owensboro Independent 3.9 14.1 10.2 38 Needs Improvement Focus District

Union County 4.3 13.1 8.8 39 Needs Improvement

Washington County 0.0 8.8 8.8 40 Needs Improvement

Kenton County 28.6 36.2 7.6 41 Proficient

Pulaski County 41.7 48.1 6.4 42 Distinguished High Performing District

Covington Independent 2.4 7.8 5.4 43 Needs Improvement Focus District

Daviess County 36.0 39.9 3.9 44 Proficient

Franklin County 36.8 36.2 -0.6 45 Needs Improvement

State 24.4 42.1 17.7 Needs Improvement

Only includes districts with both black and white data available

Page 29: K-PREP Data Sourcebook Rev 1 - FreedomKentucky MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to

26

Data Sources Algebra II (K-PREP) Scores – 2011-2012 “K-PREP End-of-Course” Excel Spreadsheet from KDE. Go to this page: (http://applications.education.ky.gov/SRC/DataSets.aspx) and select the “KPREP End-of-Course” link under the Assessment area. Bluegrass Policy Blog (www.bipps.org/blog). CATS KCCT Scores – “2010-2011 Interim Performance Report, State,” Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY. May no longer be on line. CPE ACT Benchmark Score Performance for Juniors in 2012 Excel Spreadsheet, (http://education.ky.gov/AA/Reports/Documents/ACT_CPE_Benchmarks_201112.xls). EXPLORE Benchmark Scores Excel Spreadsheet from Kentucky Department of Education, (http://education.ky.gov/AA/Reports/Documents/EXPLOREBenchmarks06071012.xls). Freedomkentucky.org Wiki Site (www.freedomkentucky.org). K-PREP Proficiency Rates – 2011-2012 “K-PREP Grade” Excel Spreadsheet from KDE. Go to this page: (http://applications.education.ky.gov/SRC/DataSets.aspx) and select the “Grade” link under the Assessment, K-PREP area (Note: This is a very large xlsx file format that cannot be fully opened by older versions of Excel). NAEP Data Explorer, (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/). PLAN Benchmark performance in 2012, (http://education.ky.gov/AA/Reports/Documents/PLANBenchmarks06071112.xls). Note: Find this report on line here: http://www.freedomkentucky.org/images/2/22/K-PREP_Data_Sourcebook.pdf