Data Overview Presentation_RChazbek

278 views
227 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
278
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I would like to discuss some data which the English/Language Arts team has been collecting and analyzing. As you know, we are working towards bringing all students to the proficient to advanced level academically by 2014. This leaves us with only a few more years to ensure this happens. Upon reviewing the following data, you will notice that our efforts to increase students reading comprehension is advancing in a forward motion.
  • Test takers include students with disabilities and students whose first language is not English. Spanish-speaking English learners take the test the Standards-based Tests in Spanish (STS).
  • Advanced: Students demonstrate a comprehensive and complex understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.
    Proficient: Students demonstrate a competent and adequate understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.
    Basic: Students demonstrate a partial and rudimentary understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.
    Far Below/Below Basic: Students demonstrate little or flawed understanding of the knowledge and skills measured by this assessment, at this grade, in this content area.
  • Over a three year period from 2005-2006 to 2007-2008, across grades 2-5, the percentage correct in reading comprehension averaged ~64% on the California Standards Test. CST scores help identify target areas and student subgroups needing additional support.
  • This data provides rationale for small group differentiated instruction to help students further develop their reading comprehension skills. Students not meeting the benchmark will be assigned to groups with smaller teacher to student ratio.
  • Reading Comprehension has increased from 63% to 69% correct on the California Standards Test. In addition, the DIBELS also showed growth for students in the 2008-2009 school year, fewer than 2% of 1st graders ended the year at risk in phonemes segmentation fluency which is down by about 19% at the beginning of the year.
  • As you can see, based on the past three years, our school is improving in the area of English/Language Arts. We are on average scoring 20% higher than other schools within the state, however, we have more work to do if we are going to catch up with other schools within this district.
  • Differentiated reading program results indicate a significant overall increase in student performance as measured by the California Standards Test. The overall API score increased by 37 points, from 829 in 2007-2008 school year to 866 in the 2008-2009 school year. Socio-economically disadvantaged students score increased by 50 points to 787 and English Learners exceeded their growth target, of 800 by improving 89 points to 840.
  • Take a moment to debrief with your grade level colleagues. Think about the data I just presented and what impacts the scores have had on student learning. Next, collaboratively decide on suggestions or areas needing improvements. Lastly, in your opinion, what is the next step?
  • Data Overview Presentation_RChazbek

    1. 1. On The Road to Excellence A Mission for English/Language Arts Proficiency and Beyond Rema Chazbek George Washington University EDUC 6240 November 9, 2010
    2. 2. Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)  California Standards Tests (CSTs) are aligned to the state content standards.  Used for student and school accountability purposes.  Measures How Well The California Education System and Its Students are Performing.  Administered every Spring for students in Grades 2-12.
    3. 3. Statements of Performance on CST  Advanced: This category represents a superior performance.  Proficient: This category represents a solid performance.  Basic: This category represents a limited performance.  Far Below/Below Basic: This category represents a serious lack of performance. The school is striving for Proficient or Advanced!
    4. 4. Kindergarten and First Grade  Over a two year period; 2007-2008 to 2008-2009, the DIBELS* assessment showed an average of 13% of 1st graders started the year at risk in letter naming fluency and 15% were at risk in the ability to segment phonemes.  In 2007-2008, an average of ~33% of 1st graders did not meet the reading benchmark as measured by the Rigby Running Record Assessment.
    5. 5. OUR DATA  CST -English/Language Arts Longitudinal Strand Analysis for Grades 2-5 2005- 2006 2006- 2007 2007- 2008 Written and Oral Language Conventions 72% 67% 71% Writing Strategies 65% 61% 59% Literary Response and Analysis 72% 68% 70% Reading Comprehension 66% 65% 63% Word Analysis and Vocabulary 70% 68% 70%
    6. 6. CST -English/Language Arts Disaggregated Data All Students Title 1 StudentsLimited English Proficiencey Students 2005-2006 to 2007- 2008 64 53 43 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 3-Year Period of Reading Comprehension Percentages on CTS (Grades 2-5)
    7. 7. Results 2006-2007 (n=304) 2007-2008 (n=271) 2008-2009 (n=262) 67% 61% 68% 65% 68% 72% 66% 73% 69% 71% 71% 59% 70% 63% 70% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Average Percent Correct English/Language Arts Subject Areas CST-ELA Longitudinal Strand Analysis (Grades 2-5) Word Analysis and Vocabulary Reading Comprehension Literary Response and Analysis Writing Strategies Written and Oral Language Conventions
    8. 8. Results California Standards Test Assessment Performance (Grades 2-5) 54 56 63 82 84 86 43 46 50 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 2007 (n=304) 2008 (n=271) 2009 (n=262) Academic School Year Percentage Scoring Proficient or Advanced School District State
    9. 9. Results 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 API Score School Year API School Results All Students 833 829 866 Socioeconomically Disadvantaged 738 737 787 Asian 881 889 887 Caucasian 846 880 927 English Learners 787 801 840 2007-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009
    10. 10. Discussion What impacts do these results have on student learning? Any other suggestions or areas needing improvements? Next step?

    ×