Making Numbers Work… NHSAA: Living with the NCLB Act Ann Remus September 21, 2004 To Improve...
-
Upload
thomasina-dalton -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
1
Transcript of Making Numbers Work… NHSAA: Living with the NCLB Act Ann Remus September 21, 2004 To Improve...
Making Numbers Work…
NHSAA: Living with the NCLB Act
Ann RemusSeptember 21, 2004
To Improve Instruction
Where to Begin?…one analysis at a time
Examples:
I. Program evaluation
II. Authentic assessment that fosters good teaching
III. Diagnosis to allow differentiated instruction/value-added assessment
I. Program Evaluation
Growth by Grade on a Norm-referenced test: Gates-MacGinite Reading Tests
We used to disaggregate by hand for Title I and SPED – led to program improvements
Difficulty keeping consistency of early skills program when grades were split among three schools in 99-00.
Gates MacGinitie Total Battery Extended Scale ScoreBy Grade Over Time
1999-2003
416 419424
432 432
474 477 475481 484
501 500 501505 505
535 538533 536 536
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 5
Grade Level Over Time
To
tal
Ba
tte
ry E
SS
Growth By Grade, Gates-MacGinite
1st Grade+16
2nd Grade+9
3rd Grade+4
5th Grade+1
Note: Black lines indicate national median Total Battery ESS for each grade level. 1st Grade: 391, 2nd Grade: 446, 3rd, Grade: 472, 5th Grade: 507.
Growth By Grade: Observations
District focus/professional development on early skills may account for growth in grades 1 and 2
The data: identifies the need to investigate upper
level elementary grades’ potential for increased growth
Identifies the need to disaggregate data By cohort By NCLB categories
Gates-MacGinite Average Total Battery ESS Grade 2
455464
468 472
498 502507 508
400
420
440
460
480
500
520
540
Going into 6thGrade
Going into 5thGrade
Going into 4thGrade
Going into 3rdGrade
Cohort
To
tal
Bat
tery
ES
S
Middle
Higher
Disaggregation: Stanine Ranges of Cohorts
National Median ESS: 446
Growth for Middle Stanine Range: 17 ESS
Growth for Higher Stanine Range: 10 ESS
Growth by Cohort, Disaggregated by Stanine
Ranges : Conclusions
Disaggregating cohorts helps us see which groups are growing more or less quickly
The middle stanine range improved more than did the higher stanine range
Progress of high and middle ranges against national median score has improved across time
Instructional implication: To “catch up,” the lower and middle groups must
continue to grow more quickly Need focused attention on best practices for the
upper group as well
Introduction of Open Court Reading Program
Prior series no longer available; wanted to make use of the research from the National Reading Panel in our programming
2002-2003: pilot, with one teacher in each grade, grades 1-4, in all three schools
2003-2004: first year of full district-wide implementation, grade 1
Average Total Score Gates MacGinitie Reading Test
(1999-2004)
416419
424
432 432
450
390
400
410
420
430
440
450
460
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
School Year
Ext
end
ed S
cal
e S
core
+16
+18
Comparison of Disaggregated Groups Grade 1 Gates Reading Tests Results
79
50
39
29
52
78
87
50
5962 60
97
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
BedfordAverage Grade
1
National Normfor Grade 1
SpecialEducation
ESL ReadingSupport
Math Apps
Groups
Per
cen
tile
Eq
uiv
alen
t o
f M
ean
Sco
re
2002-2003
2003-2004
Disaggregating grade 1 by NCLB categories after our first year of
Open Court reading
II. Authentic Assessment to Encourage Good Teaching
In the mid-1990’s, the district looked closely at its curriculum, deciding on essential questions and grade level expectations.
That work was continued with detailed curriculum maps.
One of the outcomes expected of grade 2 science, is understanding mass and volume.
measuring liquid volume and mass: following procedures and making
predictions
7484
5060708090
100
1999 2004
Year
Per
cen
t
Average Score
Source: Market ResearchSource: Market Research
Grade 2 Authentic Assessment
Leadership Seminar
Presented by Barbara GondekMay 4, 2004
Impact of Process Writing on Writing Assessment
Another Example of Authentic Assessment
Hypothesis
Students assigned to strong writing instructors in grades 7 and 8 will be shown to perform better on the Bedford Formal Writing Assessment than those who had average or weak writing instructors.
Parameters
Grades Seven and Eight Two years of scores (2002 and 2003) Sorted by Language Arts teachers Teachers were classified on the basis of
the extent to which they used all the steps of the Writing Process in their classrooms during 2002 and 2003.
1. Find an idea or topic. 2. Formulate a thesis - narrow the topic. 3. Generate details - facts, examples, and support. 4. Outline if it seems helpful. 5. Write your first draft. 6. Let things rest for a day or two. 7. Revise - look at the paper from the reader's point of view;
reorganize and add explanations where necessary. 8. Let things rest again. 9. Revise again and edit for conventions.10. Type or write the final draft.11. Proofread at least three times - once aloud, once for any
errors you habitually make, and once backwards.
Writing Process Steps
Classification of Teachers
Strong Average Weak
•Used Process Writing steps regularly•Required students to write every day
• Used Process Writing Steps occasionally •Required students to write 2-3 times per week
• Seldom used Process Writing•Most writing was “quick writes”
Extent of Process Writing vs. Student Writing Skills
67(263)
67(251)
73 (254)
0
20
40
60
80
100
Percent
Strong (392) Average (373) Weak (350)
Use of Writing Process
High Basic and Above Basic and Below
Extent of Process Writing vs. Special Education Student
Writing Skills
56(33)
59(30)
72(44)
0102030405060708090
100
Percent
Strong (59) Average (51) Weak (61)
Use of Writing Process
High Basic and Above Basic and Below
Current Writing Assessment Writing prompt is given at the
beginning of the class. Students are given a limited time
to organize ideas, brainstorm, and draft an essay.
Final copy is completed by the end of the testing session.
Writing Assessment Team
Representatives from Grades 1 – 8 worked together over the summer
Developed an assessment format and rubric that lines up with process writing.
1. Find an idea or topic. 2. Formulate a thesis - narrow the topic. 3. Generate details - facts, examples, and support. 4. Outline if it seems helpful. 5. Write your first draft. 6. Let things rest for a day or two. 7. Revise - look at the paper from the reader's point of view;
reorganize and add explanations where necessary. 8. Let things rest again. 9. Revise again and edit for conventions.10. Type or write the final draft.11. Proofread at least three times - once aloud, once for any
errors you habitually make, and once backwards.
Writing Process Steps
Assessment Plan for Fall 2004 Pre-assessment in September Post assessment in May-June Analytical scoring as opposed to
holistic Assessment given in stages similar
to process writing, over a period of days
Assessment is not the end of the writing process.
It is the bridge to revision.
III. Diagnostic/Value-Added Assessment
NWEA - given in grades 3 through 8 each fall and spring: piloted in 02-03, full implementation in 03-04.
Fall administration gives information necessary for immediate differentiation of instruction
Yearly growth by RIT ranges shows effectiveness of differentiation
7th Grade NWEA Fall to Spring RIT Growth
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
190-199 200-210 210-219 220-229 230-239 240-249 250-259
RIT Ranges
Fall t
o S
pri
ng
RIT
Gro
wth
McKelvie Average Fall to Spring Growth NWEA Growth Norms
n= 5 4 23 67 111 67 20
Grade 7 Math NWEA Fall to Spring Growth
2003-2004
Grade 7 Language UsageNWEA Fall to Spring Growth
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
200-209 210-219 220-229 230-239RIT Ranges
Fal
l to
Sp
rin
g R
IT g
row
th
McKelvieaverage fall tospring growth
NWEA nationalnorms
16 80 143 60
2003-2004
Gates-MacGinite total battery ESS vs. NWEA reading RIT total
Gates v NWEA
y = 0.32x + 46.04
R2 = 0.79
100
120
140
160
180
200
220
240
260
280
200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Gates (ESS)
NW
EA
(R
IT)
What to do? Collect data, backwards and
forwards Zero in on groups, smaller groups,
and then individuals Talk about what you see in the
data: different people may see different things
Keep at it…