Interpreting NAPLAN results and setting targets€¦ · 3. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011 USING SMART DATA...
Transcript of Interpreting NAPLAN results and setting targets€¦ · 3. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011 USING SMART DATA...
1. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Interpreting NAPLAN results and setting targets
Vers
ion
: 7 N
ov
em
be
r 2
011
2. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
INTRODUCTION The purpose of this document is to assist the principal and school self evaluation committee to interpret their NAPLAN results using SMART data analysis tools. It also offers suggestions on how to write achievable targets for literacy and numeracy based on NAPLAN data.
3. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
USING SMART DATA ANALYSIS Three SMART data analysis tools:
o Percentage in Bands,
o Student Growth, and
o Means & Standard Deviations,
will assist schools in developing targets based around improving the growth data for students. When setting targets it is important to remember that each year group is not retested until two years later. Each year group will be unique but the school improvement should be focused on improvement for individual student results.
Growth data is used by different groups within the school:
Executive/Teacher Principal • How do our results compare with the state?
• How do our results compare with the region? • What are our strengths in teaching? • What areas do we need to focus on? • Can we see the impact of changed teaching practice?
Principal / School Self Evaluation team • Where do we need to focus our teaching to improve student learning outcomes? • What needs to be done to equal or better state growth? • What professional learning and resources need to be allocated to address our targets? • Are our standards and expectations high enough to address students from all backgrounds? • Are we setting SMART targets around improving our growth?
Percentage in Bands
Trend Data
Student Growth
Means and standard
deviation
4. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Using Percentage in Bands for target setting
The percentage in bands analysis provides detailed information on student groups and their performance relative to the state, region, and SEG in specific performance bands. There are three years worth of data displayed at once, which allows the school to see if there have been changes in the number of students achieving in the various performance bands. The information in the percentage in bands analysis can be of importance for schools that are performing below the state mean. The graphs may show improved school performance through the movement of students from lower bands into higher bands. As an example, the graph below shows increased percentages in the top two bands over three years (51% in 2008; 62% in 2009; 67% in 2010. Targets can be based around the percentage of student performance in bands. This is applicable in schools larger than ten students in the testing group. Schools can set targets around increasing student performance into higher bands. Where this is used, the increases should be a band or more as a target for Year 5 to Year 7 and Year 7 to Year 9 and two bands or more for Year 3 to Year 5. The following target was written after the school below considered the graph and the target setting tool:
Increase the proportion of Year 3 students achieving in the proficiency bands for reading from 62% in 2010 to 65% in 2011.
The target setting tool helped the school decide on a feasible target for the coming year. Note: Very small schools needs to be careful as a single student may be worth a high percentage. E.g. With four students each student is worth 25% (See section on small schools.)
5. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Using Trend Data / Means and Standard Deviations for target setting Note: Both these analysis tools display information about the school mean. Because the mean is a measure of the middle, half of all schools in the state will be below the mean. In NSW there is approximately 1600 government primary and 400 secondary schools. If your school is below the mean it does not indicate it is a failure. Where schools are of concern is when they are below the state mean and when the average growth for students is not at state or better. It is important to note that schools can have improved growth above the state average growth for a year level. While this is an improvement for individual students as it indicates the school has taken them from lower band to a higher one, it could be that students are still operating well below what they are capable.
When analysing mean, consider the size of the group. In small groups the mean can be affected by a number of either high or low achieving students. If your school has a small group of students, other data sources should be analysed to develop a better understanding of actual student and school achievement. The use of growth is more appropriate for small schools. A large standard deviation indicates a wide range of scores and a small standard deviation indicates a cluster around the mean score. When comparing means, what is considered an appreciable difference?
6. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
To answer this, look at how far the schools mean sits from the state mean, in terms of the proportion of the state standard deviation. As a rule, if the school’s mean lies within 0.2 standard deviations of the state mean, then there is no appreciable difference. Beyond 0.2, the effect may be large enough to warrant an examination of contributing factors. In this numeracy example: The difference between the school and state mean is: 412.4 – 394.7 = 17.7 When 17.7 is divided by the state mean 88.7 the result is 0.19. Since this result is within 0.2 of the state standard deviation there is not a difference worthy of further consideration. This information should be considered in the school context and other school – based assessment data. To easily and quickly analyse the means and standard deviations data, use the NAPLAN Analysis Spreadsheet which can be accessed from the EMSAD website.
https://portalsrvs.det.nsw.edu.au/f5-w-68747470733a2f2f6465747777772e6465742e6e73772e6564752e6175$$/directorates/schoimpro/EMD/npa/pubs/SSE/NAPLAN%20ANALYSIS%20TOOL.xlsx The Analysis spreadsheet will calculate and show your results using a range of five colours – dark green / green (well above and above state average), yellow (within state average) and red / dark red (problem and severe problem). At a glance you will be able to determine which aspect needs further investigation.
Using Student Growth for target setting Data from this section is particularly important to all schools. Schools that are not achieving the state mean may still be providing the environment for students to achieve the expected growth in reading and numeracy. Conversely a school that may be at or above the state mean may not have appropriate growth occurring for their students. Growth on the NAPLAN scales varies depending on prior scores and because of this, a measure based on the percentage of students achieving expected growth is more useful for diagnostic and school planning purposes than a measure based on average growth alone. In
7. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
general, there is a tendency for expected growth to be higher when you start with a low prior score than from a higher prior score. In using the growth data in SMART, it is important to recognise that:
most students have a growth figure in a relatively small range around the state
average
the 2010 expected growth value thresholds should be considered interim until
sufficient data are available over time to provide confidence in the measure .
If the box with the displayed unmatched students is ticked, students who were not previously at the school for the last testing period will be indicated on the graph. Growth Charts There are corresponding growth charts that display student growth for the different aspects. These graphs provide a wealth of information on student performance and school performance. Further information is provided in a tabular form below the graph. Average Scaled Score Growth: There is a table at the bottom left that displays the average scaled score growth achieved by the students who were tested. It is separated into state, region and school growth and is also indicated for the whole group, and various selected groups. Schools need to be aware of their group size as small group results may not be valid, particularly if under 10 students.
8. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
The SSG is where a group of 5 or more selected schools have been used to compare results. Percentile Ranges: The expected minimum growth in scores that is expected for the testing interval (approximately two years apart) is the percentage of school students who did not reach the minimum state growth. • Less than 25th indicates the percentage of school matched students in the bottom 25% of the state for growth • 25th – 75th indicates the percentage of school students in the middle 50% of the state, this is also known as the inter-quartile range where half of all students score. • 75th and above indicates the percentage of the school students in the top 25% of the state. The example below indicates that too many students are in the lowest percentile, less in the middle and less in the top. Targets could be set to address this imbalance and to ensure the school performance matches the expected, or is better with a decrease in the number for the lowest percentile and higher in the middle and the top.
Percentile Ranges School Result
Less than 25th 42.9 (Should be 25 or less)
25th – 75th 35.7(Should be 50 or less)
75th and above 21.4 (Should be 25 or higher) In the example below there are no students in the lowest percentile and more in the middle and the top indicating the students have been progressed.
Percentile Ranges School Result
< 25th 0
25th – 75th 70
75th and above 30 Expected Growth: The amount next to the blue wording is the percentage of school students who did not reach the expected state growth. The amount next to the green wording is the percentage of school students who reached or exceeded the state growth. Schools with negative growth Schools will often mention that students who are often operating at the top end in performance on the testing program can easily decrease on testing two years later if they make a few mistakes. This was often the case in the Basic Skills Test where a student at the top in Year 3 could easily show negative growth by making a few mistakes in Year 5. While this is true, it is no excuse for student underperformance for those students not at the top end where the majority of students are located. Schools need to look deeply into teaching performance, the learning environments and individual students where the data shows negative growth or there is an increase of students into the lower performance bands.
9. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Small School Targets Small schools (less than ten students in the testing Year level) have to be very cautious in using the statistical data provided from the NAPLAN. Means and standard deviations are not necessarily relevant and can be greatly influenced by individual student performance. Growth is often more applicable for schools when setting improvement targets as it is more individual specific. Using percentages in the student performance in bands is problematic as an individual student is worth a large percentage. In a school with five students being tested, each student is worth 20%. Thus setting targets of increasing student performance by bands would have to be in 20% groups at least. For example having an increase in the top band by 5% is meaningless as it would have to be at least 20% to represent the student numbers for a school of five students. If one student leaves the school the target percentages would be no longer applicable. Targets that are more appropriate focus on students will be achieving the appropriate minimum growth for the Year group being tested. Thus targets such as; students will achieve growth equivalent or better to state level, are more appropriate to schools with less than 10 students. Because school plans are public domain documents and small schools have few students it may be possible for people to identify the individual performance of students. In these cases it is better not to specify the baseline in a document such as the school plan. Baseline data should be kept separately for discussions with the School Education Director.
QUANTIFYING AND MONITORING TARGETS
Extract from the School planning guidelines
3.4.6 Monitoring of the school plan focuses on progress towards the intended
outcomes of the three year plan through the achievement of annual targets.
3.4.7 School education directors can assist principals and school communities in
identifying and setting targets. Principals also have access to a statistical tool
that provides school staff with past student performance data and can support
the development of literacy and numeracy targets based on this data.
When deciding on “how much” to set as the goal for improvement it is useful to consider your baseline data. The following indicate graphical interpretations of achievable target trajectories from SMART data. It is reasonable to assume that state and regional trends will be relatively stable, thus in the examples below we have drawn state and regional trajectories on that basis.
10. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Data reported in SMART
Graphical example
Means
Improving the overall mean
Percentage in Bands
Improving the percentage in the top band
Growth
Improving the expected growth
The target setting tool uses the Percentage in Bands methodology above to provide advice about the NSW state targets for reading and numeracy. It also can be used in assisting schools to set targets for improved performance on National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN). It should be used once the school has set its school identified priority areas and outcomes. A significant benefit of the target setting tool is that it allows target setting in term of movement of whole students across the achievement bands. As well, there is a means to allow schools to adjust for local knowledge of the student group’s history and capacity to achieve the levels of performance that other student groups have achieved over time. The tool can be used to monitor achievement of targets over time.
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
% less than expected growth
% greater than or equal to expectedgrowth
Assumed state and regional trajectory
Achievable trajectory for school
Targets for three years
Assumed state and regional trajectory
Targets for three years
Achievable trajectory for school
11. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
The target setting tools for your school, preloaded with your schools NAPLAN data, are downloadable from the ASR Access tool
12. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
EXAMPLE 1 A large primary school in regional NSW
(Demonstration school 13)
Year 2010 Year 5
Aspect Numeracy Percentages in bands
Band School State Region Did not meet minimum standard (Bottom band for Year Group)
6 4 -
Above minimum standard (Middle three bands)
78 64 -
Proficient (Top two bands for Year Group)
16 32 -
Focus Questions Results How is school performance in the bottom band? How is school performance in the middle bands? How is school performance in the top 2 bands?
How big is the tested group?
A higher percentage of all students are below the national minimum standard (Band 3 - school 6%, state 4%)
A higher percentage of students are in the middle bands (Bands 4, 5, 6 - school 78%, state 64%)
A lower percentage of students are in the proficient bands (Band 7 & 8 -school 16%, state 32%)
13. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
9% of boys are performing below the
national minimum standard in Band 3 compared with state - 4%
3% of girls are performing below the
national minimum standard in Band 3 compared to state at 4%
73% of boys are performing in the middle bands - 4, 5, 6 compared with state at 59%
84% of girls are performing in the middle bands 4, 5, 6 compared with state at 68%
19% of boys are performing in the proficient bands compared with state at 35%
13% of girls are performing in the proficient bands compared with state at 28%
Mean and Standard Deviation Data
Aspect Numeracy Year 5
State Mean 499.5 Standard Deviation
79.7
Region Mean 467.4 Standard Deviation
71.8
School Mean 466.3 Standard Deviation
65.8
14. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Focus Questions Results Is data within state parameters? Is data of concern? Is data of serious concern? How big is the tested group?
[Use calculation spreadsheet to determine]
From this mean data the school performance in this aspect is worthy of investigation. (The NAPLAN Analysis Tool indicates that there is a problem.)
Data from Student Growth chart
15. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Average Scaled Score Growth
Category State Region School
All 89.11 79.4 79.0
Boys 90.58 78.5 74.2
Girls 87.6 80.5 85.2
Focus Questions Results Is school data above state average growth? Is any particular group doing better?
How big is the tested group?
The school has a lower average growth than the state but comparable to region. Boys’ growth is well below the state and region average. Girl’s growth is just under state average and above region growth.
Percentile Ranges
Percentile Ranges School Results
<25th 31.25%
25th – 75th 53.13%
75th and above 15.63%
Focus Questions Result Is school data 25, 50, 25? Is school data more towards 25-75 and 75+?
How big is the tested group?
More students fall in the <25th percentile range.
Less in the 75th or above range.
39.02% of boys are in the less than 25th percentile
31.25% of girls are in the less than 25th percentile
48.78% of boys are in the 25th – 75th percentile
53.13% of girls are in the 25th – 75th percentile
12.2% of boys are in the 75th and above
15.63% of girls are in the 75th and above percentile
Expected growth
Less than expected growth 46.9%
Greater than or equal to expected growth
53.1%
16. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Focus Questions Result Is school data higher in >=?
How big is the tested group? Slightly more than half of all students are achieving equal to or expected growth. Almost half of all students have not achieved expected growth. Boys with less than expected growth – 53.7% Girls with less than expected growth – 46.9% Boys with greater than or equal to expected growth – 46.3% Girls with greater than or equal to expected growth – 53.1%
Target Setting
Target based on Advice on writing target Percentages in student bands Target is to reduce students in the below minimum band and increase in the proficient band
Target can be specified in number of students reduced in the below minimum band or increased in the proficient band. This can be against the region or state
School Mean and Standard Deviation From the calculation spreadsheet based on data being with 0.2 or 0.5 Standard Deviations, indicating if data is within state parameters, of concern or of serious concern Targets should set increase to move school from: • serious concern to of concern • of concern to within state parameters • within state to equal or better than state
Target should show an increase, specified in marks, necessary to change from the various levels [use calculation spreadsheet to alter school mean] Eg: does the school need 8 marks to change from serious concern to of concern?
School Average Growth Target should be equal to and higher than state average All groups should be performing at state average or better
Can be specified as a number but is better written as equal to or better state average growth
Percentile Ranges Target should be better than the 25, 50, 25. Targets should favour the middle or higher percentiles
Target can be specified in reduction of students in the lower percentiles and increase in the higher percentiles
Minimum Growth Target is based on 100% achieving minimum growth Target should focus on more students at or above state minimum growth
Target can be specified in more of the group at the minimum growth level
17. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Targets
From this data there are a number of possible targets:
Decrease the percentage of students who do not meet national minimum standards in numeracy from 6% in 2010 to y% in 2011.
Increase the percentage of students achieving in the proficiency bands for numeracy from 16% in 2010 to y% in 2011.
Raise the schools’ average growth in numeracy (particularly boys’) to be equal to or above state average growth by 2011.
By 2011, increase the percentage of students achieving in the ‘75th or above percentile range’ by x%
By 2011, reduce the percentage of students achieving in the ‘less than the 25th percentile’ by y%
The target setting tool should be used to determine achievable data for 2011.
18. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
EXAMPLE 2 A large, metropolitan high school (Demonstration school 26)
Year 2010 Year 7
Aspect Writing
Percentages of students in bands
Band School State Region Did not meet minimum standard (Bottom band for Year Group)
16 10 N/A
Above minimum standard (Middle three bands)
71 65 N/A
Proficient (Top two bands for Year Group)
15 24 N/A
Focus Questions Results How is school performance in the bottom band? How is school performance in the middle bands? How is school performance in the top 2 bands?
How big is the tested group?
A higher percentage of students are performing in the bottom band compared to state (Band 4, school 16%, state 10%)
A higher percentage of students are performing in the middle bands compared to state (Bands 5, 6, 7 School 71%, state 65%)
A lower percentage of students are performing in the top two bands compared to state (Bands 8, 9 school 15%, state 24%)
20% of boys are performing in bottom band
19. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
10% of girls are performing in bottom band
71% of boys are performing in middle bands
69% of girls are performing in middle bands
10% of boys are performing in top bands
26% of girls are performing in top bands
Mean and Standard Deviation Data
Aspect Writing Year 7
State Mean 533.1 Standard Deviation
77.4
Region Mean 524.2 Standard Deviation
86.0
School Mean 496.4 Standard Deviation
77.3
20. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Focus Questions Results Is data within state parameters? Is data of concern? Is data of serious concern? How big is the tested group?
[Use calculation spreadsheet to determine]
From this mean data the school performance in this aspect is worthy of investigation. (The NAPLAN Analysis Tool indicates that there is a problem.)
Data from Growth chart
Average Scaled Score Growth
Category State Region School
All 37.13 35.8 29.7
Boys 35.41 32.8 26.0
Girls 38.89 39.2 37.8
Focus Questions Results Is school data above state average growth? Is any particular group doing better?
How big is the tested group?
The schools’ average growth is below state and region. Boys’ average growth is well below state and region. Girls’ average growth is close to state and region.
21. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Percentile Ranges
Percentile Ranges School Results
<25th 27.9%
25th – 75th 54.68%
75th and above 18.23%
Focus Questions Result Is school data 25, 50, 25? Is school data more towards 25-75 and 75+?
How big is the tested group?
Fewer students are performing in the top percentile range. More boys in the bottom percentile range (30.71%) Fewer boys in the top percentile range (13.57%) Fewer girls are in the bottom percentile range (19.05%) More girls are in the top percentile range (28.57%)
Expected growth
Less than expected growth 53.2%
Greater than or equal to expected growth
46.8%
Focus Questions Result Is school data higher in >=?
How big is the tested group? 46.8% of students achieved expected growth. 43.6% of boys achieved expected growth. 54.0% of girls achieved expected growth.
Target Setting
Target based on Advice on writing target Percentages in student bands Target is to reduce students in the below minimum band and increase in the proficient band
Target can be specified in number of students reduced in the below minimum band or increased in the proficient band. This can be against the region or state
22. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
School Mean and Standard Deviation From the calculation spreadsheet based on data being with 0.2 or 0.5 Standard Deviations, indicating if data is within state parameters, of concern or of serious concern Targets should set increase to move school from: • serious concern to of concern • of concern to within state parameters • within state to equal or better than state
Target should show an increase, specified in marks, necessary to change from the various levels [use calculation spreadsheet to alter school mean] Eg: does the school need 8 marks to change from serious concern to of concern?
School Average Growth Target should be equal to and higher than state average All groups should be performing at state average or better
Can be specified as a number but is better written as equal to or better state average growth
Percentile Ranges Target should be better than the 25, 50, 25. Targets should favour the middle or higher percentiles
Target can be specified in reduction of students in the lower percentiles and increase in the higher percentiles
Minimum Growth Target is based on 100% achieving minimum growth Target should focus on more students at or above state minimum growth
Target can be specified in more of the group at the minimum growth level
Targets
From this data there are a number of possible targets:
Decrease the percentage of students performing in the bottom band for
writing from 16% in 2010 to x% in 2011.
Increase the percentage of students performing in the proficiency bands for writing from 15% to y% by 2011.
Raise the schools’ average growth in numeracy (particularly boys’) to be equal to or above state average growth by 2011.
By 2011, increase the percentage of students achieving in the ‘75th or above percentile range’ from 18.23% to x%.
By 2011, reduce the percentage of students achieving in the ‘less than the 25th percentile’ from 27.9% to y%.
Increase the percentage of students achieving above expected growth from 46.8% to y by 2011.
23. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
EXAMPLE 3 A small school in a semi-rural community on the metropolitan fringe (Demonstration school 7)
Year 2010 Year 5
Aspect Reading
Percentages of students in bands
Band School State Region Did not meet minimum standard (Bottom band for Year Group)
17 7 N/A
24. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Above minimum standard (Middle three bands)
51 59 N/A
Proficient (Top two bands for Year Group)
34 33 N/A
Focus Questions Results How is school performance in the bottom band? How is school performance in the middle bands? How is school performance in the top 2 bands?
How big is the tested group?
A higher percentage of students are below the national minimum standard (Band 3 - school 17%, state 7%)
A lower percentage of students are in the middle bands (Bands 4, 5, 6 – school 51%, state 59%)
A similar percentage of students are in the proficient bands (Band 7 & 8 - school 34%, state 33%)
However, the cohort consists of only 6 students. One student, below the national minimum standard resulted in the 17% result.
Mean and Standard Deviation Data
Aspect Reading Year 5
State Mean 496.9 Standard Deviation
82.9
Region Mean 482.1 Standard Deviation
81.4
School Mean 474.3 Standard 84.8
25. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Deviation
Focus Questions Results Is data within state parameters? Is data of concern? Is data of serious concern? How big is the tested group?
[Use calculation spreadsheet to determine]
From this mean data the school performance in this aspect is worthy of investigation. (The NAPLAN Analysis Spreadsheet indicates that there is a problem.) However, it is important to note that the mean is unreliable unless there are at least ten students.
Data from Growth chart
26. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Average Scaled Score Growth
Category State Region School
All 83.77 83.3 87.9
Boys 83.78 83.9 95.5
Girls 83.76 82.8 57.6
Focus Questions Results Is school data above state average growth? Is any particular group doing better?
How big is the tested group?
The school has a higher average growth than the state. Boys’ growth is well above the state average.
Percentile Ranges
Percentile Ranges School Results
<25th 20%
25th – 75th 80%
75th and above 0
Focus Questions Result Is school data 25, 50, 25? Is school data more towards 25-75 and 75+?
How big is the tested group?
The school has most students in the 25th – 75th percentile. There are no students in the 75th and above percentile.
Expected growth
Less than expected growth 20%
Greater than or equal to expected growth
80%
Focus Questions Result Is school data higher in >=?
How big is the tested group? All boys show greater than or equal to expected growth. One girl has made less than expected growth. One girl was unmatched.
Target Setting
Target based on Advice on writing target
27. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Percentages in student bands Target is to reduce students in the below minimum band and increase in the proficient band
Target can be specified in number of students reduced in the below minimum band or increased in the proficient band. This can be against the region or state
School Mean and Standard Deviation From the calculation spreadsheet based on data being with 0.2 or 0.5 Standard Deviations, indicating if data is within state parameters, of concern or of serious concern Targets should set increase to move school from: • serious concern to of concern • of concern to within state parameters • within state to equal or better than state
Target should show an increase, specified in marks, necessary to change from the various levels [use calculation spreadsheet to alter school mean] Eg: does the school need 8 marks to change from serious concern to of concern?
School Average Growth Target should be equal to and higher than state average All groups should be performing at state average or better
Can be specified as a number but is better written as equal to or better state average growth
Percentile Ranges Target should be better than the 25, 50, 25. Targets should favour the middle or higher percentiles
Target can be specified in reduction of students in the lower percentiles and increase in the higher percentiles
Minimum Growth Target is based on 100% achieving minimum growth Target should focus on more students at or above state minimum growth
Target can be specified in more of the group at the minimum growth level
Targets
From this data there are a number of possible targets:
Increase the proportion of students achieving in the proficiency bands for reading by 2011
School trend data for reading shows positive increases from 2010
Reduce the proportion of students making less than expected growth by 2011
28. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
The following two examples the EMSAD model for writing small school targets
EXAMPLE 4 A small school in a rural, regional centre
Year 2010 Year 3, 5
Aspect Various aspects
29. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
2008 – 3/10 students in top three bands 2009 – 11/17 students in top three bands 2010 – 6/7 students in top three bands In 2011 there will be 10 students sitting NAPLAN (information from ASR).
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
3/10 11/17` 6/7
% aggregated
20/34=59%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
11/17 6/7 7/10
% aggregated
24/34=71%
Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 3 students achieving in the top three bands to 71% (from the 2008-10 average of 59%)
Year 5 Writing
30. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
2008 – 4/8 students in top three bands 2009 – 4/12 students in top three bands 2010 – 1/7students in top three bands In 2011 there will be 14 students sitting NAPLAN.
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
4/8 4/12 1/7
% aggregated
9/27=33%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
4/12 1/7 12/14
% aggregated
17/33=52%
1n 2009 17 students sat the Year 3 writing. 14 achieved in the top three bands. A prediction of 11/14 is made for 2011 based on school based data, and knowledge of student background. Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 5 students achieving in the top three bands to 52% (from the 2008-10 average of 33%)
31. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Year 5 Writing
2008 –No data 2009 – No data 2010 – 100% less than expected growth Target: Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 0% in 2010 to 33% in 2011. (The figure 33% was taken from the school’s ASR target.)
32. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Year 5 Numeracy
In 2009, 17 Year 3 students sat the numeracy test. 11 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 14 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN numeracy test.
33. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 65% to 79% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 11/14 students in top three bands)
EXAMPLE 5 A small, rural central school
Year 2010 Years 3, 5, 7
Aspect Various aspects
Year 3 Reading
2008 – 5/9 students in top three bands 2009 – 5/9 students in top three bands 2010 – 3/8 students in top three bands In 2011 there will be approximately 10 students sitting NAPLAN (information from 2008 ASR).
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
5/9 5/9 3/8
% aggregated
13/26 = 50%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
5/9 3/8 7/10
% aggregated
15/27=56%
34. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 3 students achieving in the top three bands to 56% (from the 2008-10 average of 50%)
Year 3 Writing
2008 – 6/9 students in top three bands 2009 – 7/8 students in top three bands 2010 – 4/8 students in top three bands Anticipated number for 2011 is 10 students.
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
6/9 7/8 4/8
% aggregated
17/25=68%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
7/8 4/8 7/10
% aggregated
18/26=69%
1n 2010 8 students sat the Year 3 writing. 4 achieved in the top three bands. A
35. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
prediction of 7/10 is made for 2011 based on school based data, and knowledge of student background. Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 3 students achieving in the top three bands to 69% (from the 2008-10 average of 68%)
Year 3 Spelling
2008 –3/9 students in top three bands 2009 – 6/8 students in top three bands 2010 – 4/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
3/9 6/8 4/8
% aggregated
13/25=52%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
6/8 4/8 7/10
36. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
% aggregated
17/26=65%
Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 3 students achieving in the top three bands to 56% (from the 2008-10 average of 50%) Year 3 Grammar and Punctuation
2008 –5/9 students in top three bands 2009 – 5/8 students in top three bands 2010 – 5/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
5/9 5/8 5/8
% aggregated
15/25=60%
37. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
5/8 5/8 7/10
% aggregated
17/26=65%
Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 3 students achieving in the top three bands to 65% (from the 2008-10 average of 60%) Year 3 Numeracy
2008 –7/9 students in top three bands 2009 – 5/9 students in top three bands 2010 – 6/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
7/9 5/9 6/8
38. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
% aggregated
18/26=69%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
5/9 6/8 8/10
% aggregated
19/27=70%
Target: Increase the three year aggregated percentage of Year 3 students achieving in the top three bands to 70% (from the 2008-10 average of 69%) Year 5 Reading
2008 –5/10 students in top three bands 2009 – 2/4 students in top three bands 2010 – 3/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
5/10 2/4 3/8
% aggregated
10/22=45%
39. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
2/4 3/8 5/8
% aggregated
10/20=50%
In 2009, 9 Year 3 students sat the reading test. 5 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 8 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN reading test. Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 56%% to 63% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 5/8 students in top three bands) Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 42.9% in 2010 to above 50% in 2011. Year 5 Writing
2008 –5/10 students in top three bands 2009 – 2/4 students in top three bands 2010 – 7/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
40. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Numbers in top three bands
5/10 2/4 7/8
% aggregated
14/22=64%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
2/4 7/8 7/8
% aggregated
16/20=80%
In 2009, 8 Year 3 students sat the reading test. 7 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 8 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN writing test. Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 88% to 86% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 7/8 students in top three bands) Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 42.9% in 2010 to above 50% in 2011. Year 5 Spelling 2008 –5/10 students in top three bands
41. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
2009 – 2/4 students in top three bands 2010 – 3/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
5/10 2/4 3/8
% aggregated
10/22=45%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
2/4 3/8 5/8
% aggregated
10/20=50%
In 2009, 4 Year 3 students sat the reading test. 2 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 8 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN spelling test. Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 50% to 63%% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 5/8 students in top three bands) Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 42.9% in 2010 to above 50% in 2011. Year 5 Grammar & Punctuation
42. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
2008 –5/10 students in top three bands 2009 – 2/4 students in top three bands 2010 – 3/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
5/10 2/4 2/8
% aggregated
9/22=41%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
2/4 2/8 5/8
% aggregated
9/20=45%
In 2009, 4 Year 3 students sat the reading test. 2 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 8 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN grammar % punctuation test. Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 50% to 63% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 5/8 students in top three bands) Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 28.6% in 2010 to X% in 2011.
43. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Year 5 Numeracy
2008 –5/10 students in top three bands 2009 – 2/4 students in top three bands 2010 – 3/8 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
5/10 2/4 3/8
% aggregated
10/22=45%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
2/4 3/8 5/8
% aggregated
10/20=50%
In 2009, 4 Year 3 students sat the reading test. 2 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 8 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN numeracy test. Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 50% to 63% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 5/8 students in top three bands) Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 57.1% in 2010 to X% in 2011.
44. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Year 7 Reading
2008 –3/3 students in top three bands 2009 – 3/9 students in top three bands 2010 – 5/7 students in top three bands
Target setting
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Numbers in top three bands
3/3 3/9 5/7
% aggregated
11/19=58%
Reporting 2009 2010 2011
Numbers in top three bands
3/9 5/7 5/7
% aggregated
13/23=57%
In 2009, 3 Year 3 students sat the reading test. 2 students performed in the top 3 bands. In 2011, 8 Year 5 students are expected to sit the NAPLAN reading test. Target: Increase the percentage of the 2009 Year 3 cohort in the top 3 NAPLAN bands from 50% to 63% in Year 5 2011 (Aim for 5/8 students in top three bands)
45. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Increase the percentage of students achieving greater than or equal to expected growth from 57.1% in 2010 to X% in 2011.
INTERPRETING RESULTS AND SETTING TARGETS
TARGET SETTING SCAFFOLD
Year Cohort
Aspect
Percentages of students in bands
Band School State Region Did not meet minimum standard (Bottom band for Year Group)
Above minimum standard (Middle three bands)
Proficient (Top two bands for Year Group)
Focus Questions Results How is school performance in the bottom band? How is school performance in the middle bands? How is school performance in the top 2 bands?
How big is the tested group?
Mean and Standard Deviation Data
Aspect Year
State Mean Standard Deviation
School Mean Standard Deviation
Focus Questions Results Is data within state parameters? Is data of concern? Is data of serious concern? How big is the tested group?
[Use calculation spreadsheet to determine]
Data from Growth chart Average Scaled Score Growth
Category State Region School
All
Boys
46. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Girls
Focus Questions Results Is school data above state average growth? Is any particular group doing better?
How big is the tested group?
Percentile Ranges
Percentile Ranges School Results
<25th
25th – 75th
75th and above
Focus Questions Result Is school data 25, 50, 25? Is school data more towards 25-75 and 75+?
How big is the tested group?
Expected growth
Less than expected growth
Greater than or equal to expected growth
Focus Questions Result Is school data higher in >=?
How big is the tested group?
Target Setting
Target based on Advice on writing target School Mean and Standard Deviation From the calculation spreadsheet based on data being with 0.2 or 0.5 Standard Deviations, indicating if data is within state parameters, of concern or of serious concern Targets should set increase to move school from: • serious concern to of concern • of concern to within state parameters • within state to equal or better than state
Target should show an increase, specified in marks, necessary to change from the various levels [use calculation spreadsheet to alter school mean] Eg: does the school need 8 marks to change from serious concern to of concern?
School Average Growth Target should be equal to and higher than state average All groups should be performing at state average or better
Can be specified as a number but is better written as equal to or better state average growth
Percentile Ranges Target should be better than the 25, 50, 25. Targets should favour the middle or higher percentiles
Target can be specified in reduction of students in the lower percentiles and increase in the higher percentiles
Minimum Growth Target can be specified in more of the group
47. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Target is based on 100% achieving minimum growth Target should focus on more students at or above state minimum growth
at the minimum growth level
Percentages in student bands Target is to reduce students in the below minimum band and increase in the proficient band
Target can be specified in number of students reduced in the below minimum band or increased in the proficient band. This can be against the region or state
Target Setting
48. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Using Item Analysis to undertake a review of student performance Once your school has reviewed the means and standard deviations, percentages in bands, and school growth information for each year group, you will have a clear idea of how the group has performed compared to the state, region, SEG etc. Your school will have discussed where they need to focus their resources to bring about improvement in student performance. An integral part of this review, and particularly important to classroom teachers, is the information found in the Item Analysis.
Teachers can use this information to closely examine each aspect. It will help them to determine what their students know, what needs to be taught or retaught, and access strategies to help teach skills / concepts.
49. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Note: The information in the Item Analysis is important to all teachers, not just the teachers of the cohort tested. The following table shows where a stage could start their analysis –
Stage 1 - Year 3 data
Stage 2 – Year 5 data
Stage 3 – Year 7 data
Stage 4 – Year 9 data
The NAPLAN tests are held early in the school year with students who have just exited a stage of learning. The performance of students can be a reflection of the teaching that took place in the previous stage. It is therefore important for teachers to analyse the types of questions that the students are proving difficult for their students. It may also be useful to check past years and see if there are any trends evident. To assist you with this process a template has been included that may help your team to analyse the questions causing difficulty in your school. Record the outcome, refer to the
syllabus and spend some time examining the knowledge and skills required to competently achieve this outcome.
50. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
EXAMPLE NAPLAN Item analysis – LITERACY QUESTION
Record the skill band.
Insert data from the Item Analysis tool for your school, state, region & SEG for this question.
A good idea would be to insert a copy of the NAPLAN question and resource material – these can be accessed from Item Analysis – Question details.
This section is very important! Have a discussion with colleagues about the responses your students gave. Use your syllabus to clarify the requirements of the outcome. Examine the questions. Can you determine why a considerable number of students may have given an incorrect answer? See below
Once you have discussed the demands of the question and identified possible student misconceptions, discuss the strategies that could be implemented to improve student understanding.
This section offers a checklist of areas to consider when analysing student performance.
51. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Question Number: 19
Outcome: RS 2.6: Uses efficiently an integrated range of skills and strategies when reading and interpreting written texts. Infers a character's motivation in a fable.
Skill Band: RS2.6
Regional % Correct: 74
State % Correct
School % Correct
Difference
Year 3
77
49
-28
School State Difference
1 He wanted to punish his son. 12% 4% 8%
2 He was fighting with his son. 10% 4% 6%
3 He was too old to go himself. 27% 13% 14%
4 He wanted his son to learn.* 49% 77% -28%
Question: Why did the father send his son into the forest?
52. EMSAD Draft at Nov 2011
Demands: Possible reasons for large difference:
Students responded to story
emotionally – a dad sending a child out
on his own, foreign concept to children,
parents don’t leave children alone –
this is mean.
Students don’t understand that a fable
is a story with a moral. Children didn’t
ask the question – what is this story
trying to teach me?
Lack of understanding of the word
‘necessity”.
Perhaps read other stories where
fathers are old and seek help from their
younger, more-able children.
Reasoning - why would a father send a
son to do something he was able to do
himself?
Inability to read the text and guessed
the answer.
Statements of Learning: When students interpret texts they have the opportunity to draw inferences from directly-stated descriptions and actions. (p. 17) Teaching Strategies: Developing Characters in Narratives
Check: Literacy demand (e.g. metalanguage;
aspects of grammar) Word/sentence/text level Context; background knowledge Literal Vs inferential comprehension Visual literacy Distractors
Teaching strategies, as accessed from the Question Details screen, are an important resource that may be a starting point in investigating strategies to support teaching and learning in the classroom. The teaching strategies have been specifically developed to address the skills and knowledge assessed and are linked to state syllabuses and the NSW Quality Teaching framework. They can be incorporated into school resources. A teaching strategy has been linked to every test item. Clicking on the Teaching Strategies button accesses a bank of literacy and numeracy strategies – literacy strategies categorised by skill and numeracy strategies categorised by strand and sub-strand. There are strategies available for the different stages of learning. The bank of teaching strategies also include Supporting Aboriginal Students, Supporting ESL Students and Supporting Students with Learning Difficulties.