Overview of descriptive and inferential options for evaluating alignment of internal and external assessments to help improve student achievement. Presented at Data Director User Conference in November 2009.

1. Aligning Benchmarks with High Stakes Assessments Devin Vodicka, Ed.D.

7. 3 rd Grade ELA Fall Benchmark Alignment 2009 2008

8. 6 th Grade ELA 1 st Semester Benchmark Alignment 2008 2009

9. Custom Reports

13. Fall ELA Alignment

16. 2 nd -5 th Grade Summary

18. 5 th Grade Revised Cut Scores 75% + Adv 59% - 74% Prof 43% - 58% Basic 33% - 42% BB 0 – 32% FBB Spring 80% + Adv 63% - 79% Prof 45% - 62% Basic 33% - 44% BB 0 – 32% FBB Mid 71% + Adv 56% - 70% Prof 39% - 55% Basic 29% - 38% BB 0 - 28% FBB Fall 5 Percentage Bands Performance Level Term Grade

19. 4 th Grade Revised Cut Scores 76% + Adv 62% - 75% Prof 45% - 61% Basic 34% - 44% BB 0 – 33% FBB Spring 77% + Adv 62% - 76% Prof 44% - 61% Basic 34% - 43% BB 0 – 33% FBB Mid 71% + Adv 53% - 70% Prof 37% - 52% Basic 25% - 36% BB 0 – 24% FBB Fall 4 Percentage Bands Performance Level Term Grade

20. 3 rd Grade Revised Cut Scores 85% + Adv 68% - 84% Prof 51% - 67% Basic 37% - 50% BB 0 – 36% FBB Spring 89% + Adv 71% - 88% Prof 55% - 70% Basic 42% - 54% BB 0 – 41% FBB Mid 79% + Adv 60% - 78% Prof 41% - 59% Basic 26% - 40% BB 0 – 25% FBB Fall 3 Percentage Bands Performance Level Term Grade

21. 2 nd Grade Running Records Fall Spring

22. 2 nd Grade Revised Cut Scores 9-11 Adv 6-8 Prof 4-5 Basic 2-3 BB 0-1 FBB Spring 86% + Adv 71% - 85% Prof 57% - 70% Basic 46% - 56% BB 0 – 45% FBB Mid 6 + Adv 4-5 Prof 3 Basic 1-2 BB 0 FBB Fall 2 Percentage Bands Performance Level Term Grade

23. Middle School ELA: Writing Prompts 41% Yes 2 nd 25% Yes 1 st 8 12% Yes to CST Writing Cluster 29% Yes to CST Overall 2 nd 10% Yes to CST Writing Cluster 22% Yes to CST Overall 1 st 7 30% Yes 2 nd 23% Yes 1 st 6 R-Squared Significant Relationship? Semester Grade