What about Growth? Evidence from

CCSSO · June 2010

What about Growth? Evidence from — CCSSO, June 2010.
Published

June 21, 2010

Event
Conference
Slides
23
Format
Converted from PowerPoint

This deck is an image-based copy of the original slides. Builds and animations are flattened; the slide text is reproduced below for search and screen readers.

Slide text
  1. What about Growth? Evidence from Iowa’s 2009 Growth Data Tom.deeter@iowa.gov
  2. Context • NCLB Growth: Are non-proficient students making progress toward proficiency? • What about the students who are already proficient? Does their growth continue?
  3. Methodology • Test used: Iowa Tests of Basic Skills. • Any student meeting growth criteria was designated such during AYP data analysis. • Students were expected to improve one achievement level to be counted as having met growth. • NCLB – only non-proficient students • Current analysis– any student meeting growth (no Alternate Assessment).
  4. Achievement Levels • Level 1 – Weak. < 9 PR • Level 2 – Lo Marginal. 10 to 29 (+/- 2) • Level 3 – Hi Marginal. 30 (+/- 2) to 40 • Level 4 – Moderate. 41 to 75 • Level 5 – Skilled. 76 to 89 • Level 6 – Accomplished. 90 to 94 • Level 7 – Distinguished. 95 to 99
  5. More Methods • Matched Data – Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 from 2008 – Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 from 2009 • 155,000 students; 31,000 per grade • Vertically aligned scale scores. Vertically articulated content standards.
  6. Findings from earlier, grade-by-grade analysis • Students at all levels are improving. • Students with the most room to grow grow the most. • Teachers are addressing needs of learners at all levels of the achievement spectrum, and in reading and mathematics.
  7. Math Results 2009 Achievement Level (& PR range) Achievement Grade Level <9 10 to 29(2) 30(2) to 40 41 to 75 76 to 89 90 to 94 95 to 99 2 (10 to 29) 3 (30 to 40) 4 (41 to 75) 5 (76 to 89) 6 (90 to 94) 7 (95 to 99) Total
  8. Math Results 2009 Achievement Level (& PR range) Achievement Grade Level <9 10 to 29(2) 30(2) to 40 41 to 75 76 to 89 90 to 94 95 to 99 2 (10 to 29) 3 (30 to 40) 4 (41 to 75) 5 (76 to 89) 6 (90 to 94) 7 (95 to 99) Total
  9. Interpretation • Blue Cells – percent of students who were not proficient in 2008 and proficient in 2009 • Orange and Blue Cells – percent of students who were not proficient in 2008 and improved in 2009.
  10. Math Results Group Not Proficient 08 Not Proficient 08 Proficient 09 Improved 09 All Students 31.0 46.6 Low SES 26.1 43.0 IEP 17.2 36.4 ELL 23.5 42.1 African-American 19.3 37.5 Asian 34.5 32.5 Hispanic 25.8 43.6 Native American 26.9 41.9 White 33.7 48.5
  11. Reading Results Group Not Proficient 08 Not Proficient 08 Proficient 09 Improved 09 All Students 33.1 50.8 Low SES 27.2 46.4 IEP 16.8 39.1 ELL 21.7 43.5 African-American 21.1 41.3 Asian 34.5 51.6 Hispanic 24.3 44.3 Native American 27.2 47.4 White 36.1 53.1
  12. Math Results 2009 Achievement Level (& PR range) Achievement Grade Level <9 10 to 29(2) 30(2) to 40 41 to 75 76 to 89 90 to 94 95 to 99 2 (10 to 29) 3 (30 to 40) 4 (41 to 75) 5 (76 to 89) 6 (90 to 94) 7 (95 to 99) Total
  13. Interpretation • Green Cells – percent of students who were improved from 2008 to 2009. • Gray Cells – percent of students who stayed at the same level from 2008 to 2009. • Yellow Cells – percent of students who went down levels from 2008 to 2009.
  14. Math Results Group % Improved % Same % Declined All Students 30.0 45.2 24.8 Low SES 27.7 46.2 26.1 IEP 27.7 44.5 27.8 ELL 28.5 15.9 55.6 African-American 25.3 46.2 28.5 Asian 53.6 5.0 41.4 Hispanic 27.4 28.6 44.0 Native American 25.6 30.1 44.3 White 30.5 45.0 24.5
  15. Reading Results Group % Improved % Same % Declined All Students 33.3 42.3 24.4 Low SES 31.0 43.6 25.4 IEP 31.6 42.7 25.7 ELL 31.3 45.0 23.7 African-American 28.6 9.4 62.0 Asian 33.1 43.6 23.3 Hispanic 29.4 45.4 25.2 Native American 28.6 29.0 42.4 White 34.0 41.8 24.2
  16. Math Results Achievement Grade Level <9 10 to 29(2) 30(2) to 40 41 to 75 76 to 89 90 to 94 95 to 99 2 (10 to 29) 3 (30 to 40) 4 (41 to 75) 5 (76 to 89) 6 (90 to 94) 7 (95 to 99) Total
  17. Interpretation • Green Cells – percent of students who stayed at the same level or improved from 2008 to • Yellow Cells – percent of students who went down levels from 2008 to 2009.
  18. Math Results Group % Same or Improved All Students 75.2 Low SES 73.9 IEP 72.2 ELL 44.4 African-American 71.5 Asian 58.6 Hispanic 56 Native American 55.7 White 75.5
  19. Reading Results Group % Same or Improved All Students 75.6 Low SES 74.6 IEP 74.3 ELL 76.3 African-American 38.0 Asian 76.7 Hispanic 74.8 Native American 57.6 White 75.8
  20. Is Iowa’s Growth Model Working? Schools/Districts Meeting AYP – 128 schools (8.6%) – 77 districts (21.1%) – 65 schools (4.4%) – 9 districts (2.4%) – 69 schools (4.8%) – 35 districts (9.7%)
  21. Summary • Students in all subgroups are improving; SWD lagging behind in proficiency. • Need to examine disparities among some subgroups, instructionally and culturally, to understand the context surrounding their achievement challenges. • Need to dig deeper to examine group differences in specific districts.
  22. Math Counts Group Number of % of All Students All Students 155682 Low SES 53869 34.6 IEP 20720 13.3 ELL 6113 3.9 African-American 8591 5.5 Asian 3554 2.3 Hispanic 9995 6.4 Native American 1362 0.9 White 132718 85.2
  23. Reading Counts Group Number of % of All Students All Students 156108 Low SES 54099 34.7 IEP 20808 13.3 ELL 6153 3.9 African-American 8485 5.4 Asian 3330 2.1 Hispanic 10140 6.5 Native American 1294 0.8 White 133086 85.3