Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.
-
Upload
charity-stafford -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.
![Page 1: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of theMichigan Educational Research Association
![Page 2: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Identifying MME Cut Scores
![Page 3: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
University 2-Year Institution 2-Year Institution
Central Michigan University Alpena Community College Mid Michigan Community College
Eastern Michigan University Delta College Monroe County Community College
Ferris State University Glen Oaks Community College Montcalm Community College
Grand Valley State University Gogebic Community College Mott Community College
Michigan Technological University
Grand Rapids Community College
Muskegon Community College
Michigan State University Henry Ford Community College North Central Michigan College
Oakland University Jackson Community College Northwestern Community College
Northern Michigan University Kalamazoo Valley Community College
Oakland Community College
Saginaw Valley State University
Kellogg Community College Schoolcraft College
The University of Michigan-Ann Arbor
Kirtland Community College Southwestern Michigan College
University of Michigan-Dearborn
Lake Michigan College St. Clair County Community College
University of Michigan-Flint Lansing Community College Washtenaw Community College
Wayne State University Macomb Community College West Shore Community College
Western Michigan University
![Page 4: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
MME content area College courses usedMathematics College Algebra.
Reading
Courses identified by 4-year universities.
Reading-heavy courses such as entry-level literature, history, philosophy, or psychology for 2-year universities.
Science
Courses identified by 4-year universities.
Entry level biology, chemistry, physics, or geology for 2-year universities.
Social Studies
Courses identified by 4-year universities.
Entry level history, geography, or economics for 2-year universities.
![Page 5: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
Grades were put on a numeric scale from 0-4 0 = F 1 = D 2 = C 3 = B 4 = A Not used
o AU, AWF, DR, R, RA, FR, T, TR, X Coded as 3.0
o P, CR Coded as 0.0
o IN, N, NC, NE, NS, W, WF, WP, WX, and U
![Page 6: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
MME Content
AreaSample
Size
Percent B or
higher
Course Grade MME Score
Mean SD Mean SD
Math 6,286 47.0 2.49 1.18 1112.2 13.2
Reading 37,952 54.9 2.64 1.23 1117.2 24.6
Social Studies
39,721 54.4 2.63 1.22 1135.4 26.3
Science 15,608 50.0 2.54 1.19 1123.5 23.5
![Page 7: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
MME Content Area
Course Type Number of Students
Mathematics College Algebra 6567
Reading
Literature 456
American History 1731
Other History 3010
Psychology 16231
Sociology 8236
Political Science 6114
Philosophy 1869
Other 2517
![Page 8: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
MME Subject Area Course Type Number of Students
Science
Biology/Life Science 8355
General Chemistry 5807
Physics 535
Other 1483
Social Studies
American History 1734
Other History 3006
Psychology 16230
Sociology 8231
Geography 612
Political Science 6108
Economics 3498
Other 2361
![Page 9: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
Students receiving an A Students receiving a B or better Students receiving a C or better
Students receiving a B or better in 4-year universities
Students receiving a B or better in 2-year institutions
![Page 10: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
Logistic Regression (LR)o Identify score that gives a 50% probability of achieving an Ao Identify score that gives a 50% probability of achieving a B or
bettero Identify score that gives a 50% probability of achieving a C or
better Signal Detection Theory (SDT)
o Identify scores that maximize the proportion receiving consistent classifications from MME to college grades• i.e., both proficient/advanced and receiving a A/B/C or better• i.e., both not proficient/partially proficient and receiving a A-/B-/C- or
worseo Equivalent to LR under mild monotonicity assumptions
Selected SDT as the preferred method because of its purpose (maximizing consistent classification)
![Page 11: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Where•success is obtaining an A/B/C or better•e is the base of the natural logarithm•β0 is the intercept of the logistic regression•β1 is the slope of the logistic regression•x is the MME score
![Page 12: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
![Page 13: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
![Page 14: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
14
![Page 15: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
![Page 16: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
Basic Idea Set the MME cut score to…
Maximize the number of students in the Consistent cells Minimize the number of students in the Inconsistent cells
Maximize consistent classification from MME to first-year college grades
MME(unknown cut score)
Freshman Grade (known cut score)
B- or Lower B or Higher
College Ready Inconsistent Consistent
Not College Ready Consistent Inconsistent
![Page 17: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MM
E Co
nte
nt
Are
a Sc
ore
Grade in First Related Freshman Credit Bearing Course
Known Cut Score
B- or lower B or higher
![Page 18: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MM
E Co
nte
nt
Are
a Sc
ore
Grade in First Related Freshman Credit Bearing Course
Consistently Classified
Inconsistently Classified
Known Cut Score
Unknown Cut Score
B- or lower B or higher
82.8%consistent classification
![Page 19: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MM
E Co
nte
nt
Are
a Sc
ore
Grade in First Related Freshman Credit Bearing Course
Consistently Classified
Inconsistently Classified
Known Cut Score
Unknown Cut Score
B- or lower B or higher
82.8%consistent classificationAdjust the unknown cut
score to maximize consistent classification
![Page 20: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MM
E Co
nte
nt
Are
a Sc
ore
Grade in First Related Freshman Credit Bearing Course
Consistently Classified
Inconsistently Classified
Known Cut Score
Unknown Cut Score
B- or lower B or higher
88.6%consistent classification
![Page 21: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
MM
E Co
nte
nt
Are
a Sc
ore
Grade in First Related Freshman Credit Bearing Course
Consistently Classified
Inconsistently Classified
Known Cut Score
Unknown Cut Score
B- or lower B or higher
90.45%consistent classification
![Page 22: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Analyses treating grades of A as the success criterion produced unusable results (i.e., the highest possible MME scale scores
Analyses treating grades of C as the success criterion produced unusable results (i.e., MME scale scores below chance level)
Analyses treating 4-year and 2-year institutions did produce different cut scores, but they were within measurement error of each other
Used analyses based on all institutions and grades of B or better to produce MME cut scores
Used probability of success of 33% and 67% to set the “partially proficient” and “advanced” cut scores
SDT and LR produced very similar results Used SDT because it was the preferred methodology
![Page 23: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Content Area
Classification
Consistency
Partially Proficient Cut Score
Proficient Cut Score
Advanced Cut Score
Mathematics 65% 1093 1116 1138
Reading 63% 1081 1108 1141
Science 67% 1106 1126 1144
Social Studies 63% 1097 1129 1158
![Page 24: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Identifying MEAP Cut Scores
![Page 25: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
25
Cohort
Grade
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
1 - - - - - 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
2 - - - - 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 -
3 - - - 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 - -
4 - - 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 - - -
5 - 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 - - - -
6 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 - - - - -
7 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 - - - - - -
8 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 - - - - - - -
9 08-09 09-10 10-11 - - - - - - - -
10 09-10 10-11 - - - - - - - - -
![Page 26: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
26
Logistic Regression (LR)o Identify score that gives a 50% probability of achieving proficiency
on a later-grade test (i.e., MME or MEAP) Signal Detection Theory (SDT)
o Identify scores that maximize the proportion receiving consistent classifications from one grade to a later grade• i.e., proficient/advanced on both tests• i.e., not proficient/partially proficient on both tests
o Equivalent to LR under mild monotonicity assumptions Equipercentile Cohort Matching (ECM)
o Identify scores that give the same percentage of students proficient/advanced on both tests
Selected SDT as the preferred method because of its purpose (maximizing consistent classification)
However, SDT and LR are susceptible to regression away from the mean
![Page 27: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
27
Same as for identifying MME cut scores Criterion for success is proficiency on a later grade test
rather than getting a B or better in a related college course
![Page 28: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
28
Each dot represents a plot of test scores in grade 8 and grade 11 for a single student
![Page 29: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
29
Grade 11: ProficientGrade 11: Not proficient
![Page 30: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/30.jpg)
30
Grade 8: ProficientGrade 11: Not proficient
Grade 8: ProficientGrade 11: Proficient
Grade 8: Not proficientGrade 11: Not proficient
Grade 8: Not ProficientGrade 11: Proficient
![Page 31: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/31.jpg)
31
![Page 32: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/32.jpg)
32
![Page 33: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/33.jpg)
33
The more links in the chain, the greater the effects of regression
Original plan for Math and Readingo Link grade 11 MME to college gradeso Link grade 8 MEAP to grade 11 MMEo Link grade 7 MEAP to grade 8 MEAPo Link grade 6 MEAP to grade 7 MEAPo Link grade 5 MEAP to grade 6 MEAPo Link grade 4 MEAP to grade 5 MEAPo Link grade 3 MEAP to grade 4 MEAP
Original plan results in 7 links by the time the grade 3 cut is set
Original plan results in inflated cut scores in lower grades
![Page 34: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/34.jpg)
34
Revised plan for Math and Reading For Grade 3, 4, 5, 6
o Link grade 11 MME to college gradeso Link grade 7 MEAP to grade 11 MMEo Link grade 3, 4, 5, or 6 MEAP to grade 7 MME
For Grade 7, 8o Link grade 11 MME to college gradeso Link grade 7 or 8 MEAP to grade 11 MME
Results in a maximum of three links for any one grade
![Page 35: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/35.jpg)
35
No evidence of regression away from the mean in identifying MEAP “proficient” cut scoreso Looking for a consistently lower percentage of students
proficient as one goes down in gradeso Used SDT to identify MEAP “proficient” cut scores
Evidence of regression away from the mean in identifying MEAP “partially proficient” and “advanced” cut scoreso Increasingly smaller percentages of students in the “Not
proficient” and “Advanced” categories as one goes down in grade
o Used ECM instead to identify MEAP “Not Proficient” and “Advanced” cut scores
![Page 36: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/36.jpg)
36
No evidence of regression away from the mean in identifying MEAP “proficient” cut scoreso Looking for a consistently lower percentage of students
proficient as one goes down in gradeso Used SDT to identify MEAP “proficient” cut scores
Evidence of regression away from the mean in identifying MEAP “partially proficient” and “advanced” cut scoreso Increasingly smaller percentages of students in the “Not
proficient” and “Advanced” categories as one goes down in grade
o Used ECM instead to identify MEAP “Not Proficient” and “Advanced” cut scores
![Page 37: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/37.jpg)
37
Classification Consistency Rates for MEAP Cut Scores in Mathematics
GradeCut Score
Partially Proficient
Proficient Advanced
8 83% 86% 95%
7 81% 84% 95%
6 82% 83% 96%
5 81% 84% 95%
4 80% 82% 94%
3 77% 80% 95%
![Page 38: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/38.jpg)
38
Classification Consistency Rates for MEAP Cut Scores in Reading
GradeCut Score
Partially Proficient
Proficient Advanced
8 83% 78% 87%
7 86% 76% 85%
6 85% 74% 83%
5 88% 75% 84%
4 80% 82% 94%
3 80% 72% 86%
![Page 39: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/39.jpg)
39
Classification Consistency Rates for MEAP Cut Scores in Science
GradeCut Score
Partially Proficient
Proficient Advanced
8 80% 84% 92%
5 76% 82% 92%
![Page 40: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/40.jpg)
40
Classification Consistency Rates for MEAP Cut Scores in Science
GradeCut Score
Partially Proficient
Proficient Advanced
9 85% 81% 91%
6 81% 77% 91%
![Page 41: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/41.jpg)
41
Creating Mini-Cuts for PLC Calculations in Reading and Mathematics
![Page 42: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/42.jpg)
42
![Page 43: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/43.jpg)
43
![Page 44: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/44.jpg)
44
![Page 45: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/45.jpg)
45
![Page 46: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/46.jpg)
46
Low Mid High Low High Low Mid High MidLow M I I SI SI SI SI SI SIMid D M I I SI SI SI SI SIHigh D D M I I SI SI SI SILow SD D D M I I SI SI SIHigh SD SD D D M I I SI SILow SD SD SD D D M I I SIMid SD SD SD SD D D M I IHigh SD SD SD SD SD D D M I
Advanced Mid SD SD SD SD SD SD D D M
PartiallyProficient
Proficient
Year X Grade Y MEAP
Performance Level
Year X+1 Grade Y+1 MEAP Performance Level
ProficientPartially
ProficientNot
Proficient
NotProficient
Adv
![Page 47: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/47.jpg)
47
New Versus Old Cut Scores
![Page 48: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/48.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 11
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
48
![Page 49: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/49.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 8
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
49
![Page 50: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/50.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 7
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
50
![Page 51: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/51.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 6
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
51
![Page 52: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/52.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 5
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
52
![Page 53: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/53.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 4
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
53
![Page 54: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/54.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Mathematics, Grade 3
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
54
![Page 55: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/55.jpg)
55
New Versus Old Cut Scores
![Page 56: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/56.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 11
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
56
![Page 57: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/57.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 8
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
57
![Page 58: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/58.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 7
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
58
![Page 59: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/59.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 6
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
59
![Page 60: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/60.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 5
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
60
![Page 61: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/61.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 4
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
61
![Page 62: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/62.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Reading, Grade 3
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
62
![Page 63: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/63.jpg)
63
New Versus Old Cut Scores
![Page 64: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/64.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Science, Grade 11
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
64
![Page 65: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/65.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Science, Grade 8
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
65
![Page 66: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/66.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Science, Grade 5
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
66
![Page 67: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/67.jpg)
67
New Versus Old Cut Scores
![Page 68: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/68.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Social Studies, Grade 11
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
68
![Page 69: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/69.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Social Studies, Grade 9
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
69
![Page 70: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/70.jpg)
0102030405060708090
100
07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
School Year
Social Studies, Grade 6
Old Cut Scores
New Cut Scores
70
![Page 71: Presentation at the Fall 2011 Meeting of the Michigan Educational Research Association.](https://reader036.fdocuments.us/reader036/viewer/2022062720/56649f005503460f94c15dd9/html5/thumbnails/71.jpg)
71
Joseph A. Martineauo Executive DirectoroBureau of Assessment & AccountabilityoMichigan Department of Education
[email protected] 517-241-4710