NWEA MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA … MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA ANALYSIS Spring 2015 ... For...

PreparedbyM.Place(06/02/2015) Page1

NWEA MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA ANALYSIS Spring 2015

Research Question

What does the analysis of the three-years of NWEA MAP Assessment data show us?

Background and Methodology

The City School District of Albany has all of its students in grades K-12 participate in the NWEA MAP assessments in Reading and Mathematics. Students in grades K-8 take the assessment three times a year (Fall-Winter-Spring), and students in grades 9-12 participate twice (Fall-Spring). For this analysis, the scores for the Spring assessment over the last three years will be analyzed in multiple ways, and the methodology for each analysis will be described with each data table or graph presented.

For Analysis #1 and Analysis #2, each student’s RIT score was compared to the national norm for their grade level. Based on that comparison, student scores were then placed into one of four levels as described below:

LEVELS

FAR BELOW: More than 1 year below

BELOW: Up to 1 year below

AT: At grade level

ABOVE: Above grade level

The table below displays the cut points used for each of the four levels.

*Please note that at the upper grade levels the scoring bands begin to overlap. When overlapping occurs we have used the same bands.

FAR BELOW BELOW AT ABOVE FAR BELOW BELOW AT ABOVE

K <143 143‐159 >159 K <143 143‐159 >159

1 <143 143‐159 160‐175 >175 1 <143 143‐159 160‐177 >177

2 <160 160‐175 176‐188 >188 2 <160 160‐177 178‐191 >191

3 <176 176‐188 189‐198 >198 3 <178 178‐191 192‐202 >202

4 <189 189‐198 199‐206 >206 4 <192 192‐202 203‐211 >211

5 <199 199‐206 207‐211 >211 5 <203 203‐211 212‐218 >218

6 <207 207‐211 212‐215 >215 6 <212 212‐218 219‐225 >225

7 <212 212‐215 216‐218 >218 7 <219 219‐225 226‐229 >229

8 <216 216‐218 219‐221 >221 8 <226 226‐229 230‐233 >233

9 <219 219‐221 222‐223 >223 9 <230 230‐233 234‐236 >236

10 <222 222 223 >223 10 <230 230‐233 234‐236 >236

11 <222 222 223 >223 11 <230 230‐235 236‐238 >238

12 <222 222 223 >223 12 <230 230‐235 236‐238 >238

READING MATH


ANALYSIS #1:

EVALUATING ONE YEAR TO ANOTHER USING THE FULL DATA SET FOR EACH YEAR

All students in each year’s data set were included in this analysis. The students in the Spring 2013 group are not the same exact students as those in the Spring 2015 group. This therefore represents an apples-to-oranges comparison as we are not comparing how the same students did over several years, but rather how all the students in one year did relative to all of the students in another year.

Reading:

Over the last three years, the percentage of students scoring at each of the four levels has remained statistically unchanged.


Math:

Over the last three years, the percentage of students scoring in each of the four levels has remained statistically unchanged.


ANALYSIS #2:

EVALUATING ONLY STUDENTS WITH THREE YEARS OF DATA

For this analysis, only students who had an assessment score in each of the last three years were included. This therefore represents an apples-to-apples comparison as we are comparing how the same students did over several years. A total of 4168 students were included in this analysis. Those students who did not have three years of data were excluded.

Please note that this data was run a second time looking at only grades K-8, and the analysis remained within decimal points of the data that is presented below for all K-12 students.

Reading:

Over the last three years the percentage of students scoring “Above” has increased by 3.79%. However, the percentage of students scoring in the “At” level has decreased by 10.89%, and the percentage of students scoring “Far Below” has increased by 9.14%.


Math:

Over the past three years, the percentage of students scoring in the “Far Below” and “Below” categories has increased by 12.73%.


ANALYSIS #3: AVERAGE RIT SCORE BY GRADE LEVEL & SUBGROUP

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level with all students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

ALL STUDENTS

Over the past three years, only 10th grade reading has shown an increase greater than the standard error.

READING K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 153 170 182 192 199 206 210 215 216 215 216 221 223

SPRING 2014 153 169 183 190 199 204 210 213 217 216 217 220 221

SPRING 2015 154 170 184 190 198 204 208 214 218 218 220 220 221

The graph below compares the Spring 2013 and Spring 2015 average RIT scores for Reading using the data in the table above. Additionally, an “ACT 22” line has been added. This line has been used by the District for the past two years. This line approximates the NY State level of “Proficient” on the 3-8 Assessments and it is aligned with the targets for “College and Career Ready”.

The graph shows that the average Reading RIT score by grade level has remained constant over the past three years with no statistically significant changes.


Over the past three years, only 6th and 12th grade math have shown a change greater than the standard error.

MATH K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 154 173 186 196 205 214 218 220 224 222 227 231 234

SPRING 2014 153 172 188 194 205 212 217 219 223 223 226 231 232

SPRING 2015 154 172 189 195 204 213 214 221 224 224 229 229 228

The graph below compares the Spring 2013 and Spring 2015 average RIT scores for Math using the data in the table above. Additionally, an “ACT 22” line has been added. This line has been used by the District for the past two years. This line approximates the NY State level of “Proficient” on the 3-8 Assessments and it is aligned with the targets for “College and Career Ready”.

The graph shows that the average Math RIT score by grade level has remained constant over the past three years with no statistically significant changes.


SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only special education students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 142 155 163 174 181 190 195 199 198 201 201 201 208

SPRING 2014 145 157 166 171 179 187 198 198 202 198 204 203 202

SPRING 2015 150 159 167 170 178 186 195 202 205 201 201 206 203



SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only special education students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 140 155 165 183 191 198 203 200 206 204 205 204 211

SPRING 2014 141 154 169 178 190 197 205 203 203 200 203 206 196

SPRING 2015 145 159 171 184 185 196 203 208 209 202 202 205 201



ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Economically Disadvantaged students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 150 167 178 189 196 202 207 212 213 211 210 214 218

SPRING 2014 150 165 181 187 195 200 208 210 214 211 211 214 215

SPRING 2015 152 167 182 187 194 201 206 210 215 215 214 215 213


*Please note that in the 2014‐2015 school year we became a “Community Eligible District” which now provides free

breakfast and lunch to all students. This then resulted in only those students whose families receive social services to be

classified as “economically disadvantaged”. Therefore, any conclusions about the change in scores should note this

change.


ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Economically Disadvantaged students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 151 171 183 194 202 211 214 217 221 218 220 224 227

SPRING 2014 150 169 185 191 201 207 213 216 219 217 221 222 227

SPRING 2015 152 169 186 193 199 209 210 216 221 218 220 222 219


*Please note that in the 2014‐2015 school year we became a “Community Eligible District” which now provides free

breakfast and lunch to all students. This then resulted in only those students whose families receive social services to be

classified as “economically disadvantaged”. Therefore, any conclusions about the change in scores should note this

change.


ESL STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only ESL students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 146 164 174 181 192 195 200 208 196 187 188 196 204

SPRING 2014 146 159 169 178 180 186 184 194 192 183 186 189 207

SPRING 2015 146 158 172 173 179 181 186 187 196 181 186 189 198


*Please note that our ESL population is approximately 800 students and their demographics are highly variable from

year to year. The number of students in any one grade level and their unique circumstances before arriving in the

United States makes a year‐to‐year comparison challenging.


ESL STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only ESL students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 160 177 189 194 210 217 217 217 216 207 209 217 221

SPRING 2014 158 170 183 195 199 207 209 214 211 203 208 211 219

SPRING 2015 152 169 186 191 202 202 206 209 214 203 204 211 215


*Please note that our ESL population is approximately 800 students and their demographics are highly variable from

year to year. The number of students in any one grade level and their unique circumstances before arriving in the

United States makes a year‐to‐year comparison challenging.


ETHNICITY---ASIAN STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Asian students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING

Asian K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 154 170 183 192 199 203 204 217 202 201 193 203 216

SPRING 2014 150 167 184 195 198 205 203 209 214 207 201 207 218

SPRING 2015 153 165 183 191 198 201 205 211 212 204 208 206 219


*Please note that our Asian student population is highly correlated with our ESL population. As a group, their

demographics are highly variable from year to year. The number of students in any one grade level and their unique

circumstances before arriving in the United States makes a year‐to‐year comparison challenging.


ETHNICITY---BLACK STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Black students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING

Black K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 150 167 180 189 197 204 209 212 216 214 216 219 220

SPRING 2014 150 166 180 188 197 202 210 212 216 214 217 218 217

SPRING 2015 152 167 182 186 196 202 206 213 217 217 219 221 216



ETHNICITY---HISPANIC STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Hispanic students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING

Hispanic K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 149 167 177 192 196 203 209 212 211 212 214 215 221

SPRING 2014 151 165 182 186 196 201 208 211 216 210 218 211 214

SPRING 2015 153 168 180 188 193 203 206 212 217 216 215 215 214



ETHNICITY---WHITE STUDENTS---READING

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only White students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

READING

White K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 161 179 191 199 206 212 218 223 225 225 228 235 232

SPRING 2014 159 177 188 199 207 210 215 220 223 226 226 232 231

SPRING 2015 161 179 192 197 207 211 215 218 223 227 228 230 232



ETHNICITY----ASIAN STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Asian students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH

Asian K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 165 180 196 201 214 224 221 226 223 218 216 226 233

SPRING 2014 158 177 193 203 210 219 222 225 226 223 218 226 236

SPRING 2015 159 172 195 202 214 217 221 229 228 218 226 224 235


*Please note that our Asian student population is highly correlated with our ESL population. As a group, their

demographics are highly variable from year to year. The number of students in any one grade level and their unique

circumstances before arriving in the United States makes a year‐to‐year comparison challenging.


ETHNICITY---BLACK STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Black students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH

Black K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 149 169 183 194 202 210 214 216 222 218 222 225 229

SPRING 2014 148 168 183 191 201 208 213 215 219 220 223 225 227

SPRING 2015 151 168 185 191 200 209 210 217 221 220 225 225 223



ETHNICITY---HISPANIC STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only Hispanic students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH

Hispanic K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 148 171 183 196 203 213 217 218 218 218 222 228 225

SPRING 2014 151 168 187 192 203 209 213 216 221 214 223 220 223

SPRING 2015 151 170 183 194 200 210 212 219 221 221 223 223 214



ETHNICITY---WHITE STUDENTS---MATH

For this analysis the average RIT score was calculated by grade level for only White students included for each year. The national RIT scores for each grade level have a standard error of approximately three (3) points. In order to be considered a statistically significant change, a change would need to exceed the three point standard error. For those grade levels with changes greater than three points, we have highlighted them green (increase) or red (decrease) in the data table.

MATH

White K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

SPRING 2013 162 181 195 202 213 222 226 230 235 234 242 244 245

SPRING 2014 160 180 196 200 213 220 224 227 233 235 237 246 243

SPRING 2015 162 181 198 201 213 223 223 228 233 240 242 243 241


NWEA MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA … MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA ANALYSIS Spring 2015 ... For...

Documents

Transcript of NWEA MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA … MAP ASSESSMENTS---3 YEAR DATA ANALYSIS Spring 2015 ... For...