Upcoming SlideShare
×

# Data overview szczypka

265 views

Published on

Assignment #1, Data Overview for my EDUC6240 Fall Class #2

Published in: Education, Technology
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
• Full Name
Comment goes here.

Are you sure you want to Yes No
• Be the first to comment

Views
Total views
265
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
3
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
• And just a quick look at our Gender distribution. As you can see, in the 5th grade we have slightly more male than female students.- with 35 males and 30 females
• Now that we have an idea of the student we will be reviewing, lets look at Montclair’s 5th grade math scores in comparison with the district and state scores. Compared to the state scores, Montclair has a greater amount of students in the unsatisfactory level, and conversely, far less students in the advanced level. In the intermediate levels (PP, an P) our students score about the same or slightly worse than district level. Overall this graph shows the gaps that we still have a lot of work ahead of us to bridge the gaps that exist in achievement between our school, our dsitrict, and our state.
• Now we are going to look at our 5th grade math scores over the last 3 years. Remember these are not the same children being tested, but new 5th graders each year. Here we can see a few trends. First, our number of unsatisfactory students increases, but our number of advanced students increases as well. The number of students that are partially proficient decreases, and the number of proficient students stays the same over time. What we would like to see is unsatisfactory and partially proficient levels decreaseing and proficient and advanced levels increasing, but that just isnt happening yet.
• Now this graph shows a cohort trend. It takes the students that have just “graduated” from Montclair and shows their scores from 2008-2010 in grades 3-5. This show that in reality, these students have actually made significant gains in decreasing the number of students who are unsatisfactory and partially proficient and increasing the amount of students who are proficient and advanced. This is something we can be proud of. Now lets see how this information breaks down when we take into account the disaggregated data.
• Here we are looking at females and males across grade levels through time following the graduating cohort of year 2017. The good news is, all students seem to be increasing in proficiency, even when taking into account the margin of error. The bad news is, females are still far behind the males, and even compared to the whole school average. Why is this?
• This graph looks at females and males from a different point of view. Here we just focus on 5th grade 2010 CSAP results. As you can see, there are a few more females in the partially proficient level and there are more than twice as many males than females in the advanced section. With the information we learned from the last graph, we can now see that not only are males more proficient, they are also much more advanced.
• Let’s change gears now and talk about ethnicity. I brought up our 5th graders ethnicity at the beginning of the presentation, and we have a more diverse population than most schools. CSAP only measures three different ethnicities which they label “white” “hispanic” and “black” for the sake of continuity that is what we will use here. Even though our White children are only 25% of the student population, they have a much greater majority of scored In the proficient or advanced, while the hispanic and Black students have the majority of students in unsatisfactory or partially proficient.
• Our students in special groups (disabilities, English language learners, economically disadvantaged) are doing better than the state average. That begs me to ask the question: what programs and services are our special needs student receiving that our females and our minority students are not.
• ### Data overview szczypka

1. 1. Montclair 2010 All-Staff Meeting A sneak peek into our students’ performance in math Data Overview of CSAP Mathematics (Gr. 5 Focus) By: Elizabeth Szczypka Assignment #1
2. 2. Take a second to think… • Because it’s a new school year, I want you to think back to last year…. …Think about the students that were struggling the most. Who were they? Girls? Boys? African-American? Asian? English Language Learners? • Today we are going to look at CSAP Mathematics data that can give us a starting point into understanding which students are in need of the most help. • Open your mind and get ready to learn!
3. 3. 28% 29% 25% 14% 1% 3% Montclair 5th Grade Student Population by Ethnicity Latino/a (n=18) African American (n=19) White/Anglo (n=16) African (n=9) Native American (n=1) Middle Eastern (n=2) Total 5th grade students (n=65)
4. 4. 54% 46% Montclair Elementary 2010 gr. 5 Gender Distribution Males (n=35) Females (n=30)
5. 5. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% % Unsatisfactory % Partially Proficient % Proficient % Advanced % No Score PercentageofStudents Proficiency Level Montclair Elementary 2010 Mathematics Gr. 5: State, District and School CSAP comparisons State Average (n=60257) District Average (n=5553) School Average (n=65)
6. 6. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 50.00% 2008 2009 2010 PercentofStudents Year Montclair Elementary Gr. 5 CSAP Mathematic Proficiency by Year (2008-2010) Advanced Proficient Partially Proficient Unsatisfactory
7. 7. -80.00% -60.00% -40.00% -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% Grade 3 2008 (n=53) Grade 4 2009 (n=53) Grade 5 2010 (n=65) Percentofstudents Montclair Elementary Cohort Trend Gr. 3-5 (2008-2010) CSAP Mathematics Comparison Advanced Proficient Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient
8. 8. 60% 65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 2008, gr. 3 (n=53) 2009 gr. 4 (n=53) 2010 gr. 5 (n=65) PercentofProficientStudents Year and Grade Level Montclair Elementary CSAP Mathematic Scores: Cohort Comparison of Proficient Students by Gender for the Class of 2017 Female Male Whole School
9. 9. 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Unsatisfactory Partially Proficient Proficient Advanced PercentofStudents Proficiency Levels Montclair Elementary 2010 Gr. 5 Mathematics CSAP: Males vs. Females Male Female (n=35) (n=30) (n=7) (n=9) (n=11) (n=8) (n=7) (n=11) (n=9) (n=3)
10. 10. -80.00% -60.00% -40.00% -20.00% 0.00% 20.00% 40.00% 60.00% 80.00% 100.00% White Hispanic Black Montclair Elementary 2010 Mathematics Gr. 5 CSAP Results by Ethnicity % Advanced % Proficient % Unsatisfactory % Partially Proficient (n=2) (n=9) (n=7) (n=2) (n=7) (n=4) (n=11) (n=3) (n=1) (n=7) (n=7) (n=5)
11. 11. 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 80.00% 90.00% 100.00% Students with Disabilities English Language Learners Economically Disadvantaged PercentofStudents Special Group Montclair Elementary Gr. 5 2010 Mathematics CSAP: Percentage of Proficient Students by Special Groups School (n=65) State (n=60257)
12. 12. Questions: • Is any of this data surprising to you? •What piece of data has stuck with you the most? Why? • Do you feel that the results from the CSAP scores are accurately reflected in your classroom? Why or why not? Discuss with the people at your table and be ready to share!