The document discusses a study on the effects of "Course Fusion", a data-driven student placement process, on early reading achievement. It found that Course Fusion had a significant positive impact on reading skills, especially for disadvantaged students. While control schools saw smaller gains for low-income and at-risk students, those using Course Fusion saw improved rates of learning and closed achievement gaps over 3 years. The study provides evidence that using objective data and rubrics in placement can improve equity and access to education.

1. Course Fusion and Its Effect On Early Reading
Achievement
Thomas S. Bruce, Ed.D.
Data Success Systems, Inc.
Datasuccess.net

2. The Problem
• The existing elementary student placement process is rife with
bias and ethical issues - Yet few are aware, and so it continues
year after year.
• Influential parents and teachers that have access and knowledge of school site
processes are more able to influence future teachers and classroom peers;
inadvertently capsizing classroom rosters (Clotfelter et al., 2006; Jacob &
Lefgren, 2005; Raudenbush, 2004; Rivkin, 2007).
• Unethical compromises can be made by staff and administration; especially when
high stake student assessments impact high stakes value added models
(Davidson, 2012; Fink, 2012; Goldhaber, D., et. al. (2015).
• This study and others found similar interior and exterior forces present in most
all school environments (Ballou and Springer, 2015; Finke, 2012; Guarino et al.,
2012). Therefore, many of the causes for subjectivity and the perpetuation of the
bias, yet existing student placement system are still in place today.

3. The Treatment
• A data driven process is required to manage the placement pressures
on the school site and offer all students equity and access to a quality
education.
• Course Fusion focuses on the impact and limitations of instructional
time. Additionally, Course Fusion uses a rubric that calibrates staff
perceptions to offer measured and accurate values to regulate student
movement within the rosters.
• “In an ideal world, teacher quality would be equitably distributed
across all students” (Goldhaber et al., 2015, p. 305).
• Course Fusion was used as the treatment in my most recent study and
had significant positive impact on early reading skills; especially for
disadvantaged students!

4. Sample Students
• The samples were composed from 6 elementary schools from the
same high performing, suburban Los Angeles county school district.
• The study collected demographic and assessment data from the
school district student information system for students attending
grades K – 5 between 2011/2012 and 2013/2014 (N=3764). All
identifying data was removed.
• This study focused on early elementary students and it was a 3 year
longitudinal study. Students in kindergarten through 3rd grade were
identified as the sample (n=1500).
• Of this total sample size, the treatment school had 314 participants
and the 5 remaining control schools consisted of 1186 participants
which created a rational ratio for propensity score analysis using
nearest neighbor matching methods.

5. Controlling for Sample Bias
• Due to the lack of
randomization within the
sample, the statistical tool, R
MatchIt (http://gking.harvard.edu/matchit)
addressed selection bias with
Propensity Score Analysis
(PSA).
“Propensity scores operate under the assumption
that, when properly modeled, the distributions and
propensity scores are equal or close to equal across
the treatment and control conditions” (Beal &
Kupzyk, 2014, p. 71).

6. Matched Peer’s Performance
Very similar data for all students not participating in FRL! However, there were
HUGE differences for students that come from low social economic families.
Compare the mean values! The Control schools Non FRL grew 400-540 and their
FRLs improved only 250-350. Now look at the Course Fusion FRLs! They perform
much better, gaining on their peers with 380 - 520!

7. Matched Peer’s Performance
Again, there was very little difference between Treatment and Control students that are not in Title
I (meaning students that do not struggle in academics).
However compare the mean values of the Title I control students who scored 280-380 with the
Course Fusion TI students! Course Fusion TI students improved at a much better rate – 350 -500.
In fact, the Course Fusion TI students compare well with non TI students’ overall achievement levels
(~580) after 3 years.

8. More Interesting
At Risk At Risk
Reviewing Composite Scores only, there were positive
differences for Course Fusion students when compared
to Control students:
An improvement of +17 points for all students
An improvement of +114 points for high poverty students
An improvement of +76 for academic at risk students!

9. Most Interesting – Closing Gaps
High Poverty
Students v. Others
At Risk Students v.
Others
Notice that low SES students (green) scored
lower than their peers’ starting point after 3
years of instruction – in the same schools,
and same grade levels! Meanwhile, Course
Fusion students (purple) are closing the
achievement gap.
Similarly, Title I students (green) showed
improvement but still do not perform at the
initial level of their peers even after 3 years
of instruction – How big would gaps be by 5th
grade?

10. Implications
• Course Fusion may impact early reading achievement as
measured by most early reading indicators, considering the
important grades of kindergarten through third.
• Overall, the analyses of these groups provided some evidence
that Course Fusion may improve both the rate of learning year
to year and raise values of learning over 3 years compared to
the matched control sample students.

11. Conclusion
•In light of this research, school site
administrators now have an ethical duty
on behalf of their students to address the
bias of existing placement procedures
through collaboration, innovation, and
data-driven means.