1. Elementary Assessment Data Update Edmonds School District January 2013

2. Learning Target To summarize trends and patterns seen in current district elementary student achievement data in literacy, math, and science, especially in relation to district curriculum adoptions.

3. Agenda 1. Literacy ▫ MSP Reading and Writing results ▫ Correlations among Literacy Assessments ▫ Relationship between Benchmark Comprehension Assessment and MSP Reading ▫ Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Levels ▫ Reflection on Literacy Results 2. Math and Science ▫ MSP Math Results ▫ Grade 2 Math Assessment Results ▫ MSP Science Results ▫ Reflection on Math/Science Results

4. Literacy

5. Reading WASL/MSP Grade 3 Percent Meeting Standard Spring 09Spring 10Spring 11Spring 12 District72.774.378.274.0 State71.472.173.168.8 Difference1.32.25.15.2 1 st year of Benchmark 1 st year of MTI

6. Reading WASL/MSP Grade 4 Percent Meeting Standard Spring 09Spring 10Spring 11Spring 12 District73.968.271.276.1 State73.667.267.371.5 Difference0.31.03.94.6 1 st year of Benchmark 1 st year of MTI

7. Reading WASL/MSP Grade 5 Percent Meeting Standard Spring 09Spring 10Spring 11Spring 12 District71.870.073.474.8 State74.069.667.771.1 Difference - 2.20.45.73.7 1 st year of Benchmark 1 st year of MTI

8. Reading WASL/MSP Grade 6 Percent Meeting Standard Spring 09Spring 10Spring 11Spring 12 District72.569.375.277.4 State72.064.670.670.7 Difference0.54.74.66.7 1 st year of Benchmark 1 st year of MTI

9. Summarize Based on the district-wide MSP Reading results we’ve just reviewed, write 1 or 2 statements that summarize the trends and patterns you see in the data. Use the lines on your PowerPoint handout for recording your summary. You may do this on your own or with a partner.

10. Summary of MSP Reading Data (in terms of differences between district and state averages) In Grades 3-5, the percent of students meeting standard on the Reading MSP: ▫ increased by at least 3 percentage points in the first year of Benchmark implementation, and ▫ in the second year maintained a level consistent with this higher achievement. In Grade 6, the percent of students meeting standard: ▫ stayed about the same in the first year of Benchmark implementation as the previous year, but ▫ increased by 2 percentage points in the second year of implementation.

11. Writing WASL/MSP Grade 4 Percent Meeting Standard Spring 09Spring 10Spring 11Spring 12 District61.462.865.268.9 State60.461.161.4 Difference1.01.73.87.5 1 st year of Benchmark 1 st year of MTI

12. Summary of MSP Writing Data (in terms of differences between district and state averages) Since the Benchmark materials adopted by the district do not explicitly address writing skills, the change in the district’s Grade 4 writing performance has been somewhat unexpected, with ▫ an increase of about 2 percentage points in the first year of Benchmark implementation, and ▫ an additional 4 percentage point increase in the second year of implementation.

13. Relationships Among Measures A correlation is a statistic ranging between -1.0 and 1.0 that measures the extent to which two variables are related. When two variables are related positively, it means that when one goes up, the other one also tends to go up. When two variables are related negatively, it means that when one goes up, the other one tends to go down.

14. Relationships Among Measures A correlation close to zero means that the two variables have essentially no relationship (i.e., they are measuring independent constructs). A correlation of about.60 or above is considered relatively strong. The higher the correlation, the stronger the relationship. Correlations reported here are from the 2011-12 school year.

15. Kindergarten Literacy Correlations AssessmentsCorrelationsComments Sight Words – Winter with Spring.81Very high relationship Sight Words – Fall with Winter Fall with Spring.57.24 Perhaps correlations with Fall are lower because the number of sight words expected in fall is quite low. Spring Sight Words with Spring Comprehension.26 These two assessments are measuring different constructs within Kindergarten literacy.

16. Grade 1 Literacy Correlations AssessmentsCorrelationsComments Spring Independent Reading Level with Spring Comprehension.62Fairly high relationship Fall and Winter Independent Reading Levels with Spring Comprehension.46 (fall).56 (winter) More time between assessments. Lots of learning happening in 1 st grade.

17. Grade 2 Literacy Correlations AssessmentsCorrelationsComments Fall Grade 2 Reading Assessment with Independent Reading Level (fall, winter, spring).81 (fall).77 (winter).68 (spring) Strong relationship between Grade 2 Reading Assessment and Independent Reading Level. Spring Grade 2 Reading Assessment with Independent Reading Level (fall, winter, spring).76 (fall).80 (winter).79 (spring)

18. Grades 3 - 6 Correlations: MSP and Benchmark Comprehension AssessmentsCorrelationsComments Spring MSP Reading with Benchmark Comprehension (fall, winter, spring) 3456 The Benchmark Comprehension Assessments have a fairly strong relationship with the Reading MSP. Fall Winter Spring.68.69.66.67.71.63.56.65.64.58.35.67

19. Grades 3 - 6 Correlations: MSP and Independent Reading Levels AssessmentsCorrelationsComments Spring MSP Reading with Independent Reading Levels (fall, winter, spring) 3456 Independent Reading Levels have a lower relationship with the Reading MSP at grades 4-6 than at grade 3. Fall Winter Spring.63.66.68.51.55.57.52.58.50.59.56

20. Summarize Based on the district-wide Literacy correlations we’ve just reviewed, write 2 or 3 statements that summarize the trends and patterns you see in the data. Use the lines on your PowerPoint handout for recording your summary. You may do this on your own or with a partner.

21. Summary of Literacy Correlations In general, the Benchmark Comprehension Assessments appear to be a relatively good predictor of performance on the Reading MSP. As students get older, Independent Reading Levels appear to be a somewhat lower predictor of MSP Reading performance. However, the sample is skewed since students in the MSP grades are only given a running record if they are new to the district or have not met standard on another assessment.

22. Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level Both DIBELS and Independent Reading Levels measure foundational reading skills. Using 2011-12 data, we can compare alignment between DIBELS recommendations and Independent Reading Levels. However, only at Grade 1 are nearly all students tested on both measures. In Grades 2-6, only students below target on another measure are given both measures.

23. Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level Students would be considered “out of alignment” between these two measures if they scored: DIBELS – Intensive AND Instructional Reading Level – Meets or Exceeds OR DIBELS – Benchmark AND Instructional Reading Level – Below

24. Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level 123456 DIBELS Intensive AND Meets/Exceeds on Independent Reading Level 321610 13 DIBELS Benchmark AND Below on Independent Reading Level 8297154 Number of Students in “Out of Alignment” Categories by Grade Level

25. Summary of Relationship between DIBELS and Independent Reading Level The numbers of students who are “out of alignment” between DIBELS and Independent Reading Levels are quite small. The largest group – 21 2 nd graders who are “false negatives” on DIBELS – comprise only about 1 percent of enrolled students at that grade level. These data remind us of the importance of using multiple measures when making placement decisions about students.

26. School Team Reflection on Literacy Results Think across all the literacy data we have just seen and discussed. Remember that real-life data are typically somewhat messy! What surprises you in the data? What fits with your expectations? What are implications of the Literacy data for our work as a district? Please record this on your School Team Reflection sheet.

27. Math

28. Math WASL/MSP Grade 3 Percent Meeting Standard Spr 07Spr 08Spr 09Spr 10Spr 11Spr 12 District72.168.669.664.365.669.6 State69.668.666.361.861.665.3 Difference2.503.32.54.04.3 1 st year of Expressions 1 st year of MTI

29. Math WASL/MSP Grade 4 Percent Meeting Standard Spr 07Spr 08Spr 09Spr 10Spr 11Spr 12 District59.252.748.554.954.660.2 State58.153.652.353.759.359.4 Difference1.1 - 0.9 - 3.81.2 - 4.70.8 1 st year of Expressions 1 st year of MTI

30. Math WASL/MSP Grade 5 Percent Meeting Standard Spr 07Spr 08Spr 09Spr 10Spr 11Spr 12 District58.760.463.557.068.864.6 State59.561.261.953.661.363.8 Difference - 0.8 1.63.47.50.8 1 st year of Expressions 1 st year of MTI

31. Math WASL/MSP Grade 6 Percent Meeting Standard Spr 07Spr 08Spr 09Spr 10Spr 11Spr 12 District49.752.954.657.662.768.9 State49.649.150.951.958.861.5 Difference0.13.83.75.73.97.4 6 th graders had 3 years of Expressions; Pilot of 6 th grade Expressions in 5 schools. 1 st year of MTI

32. Summarize Based on the district-wide MSP Math results we’ve just reviewed, write 2 or 3 statements that summarize the trends and patterns you see in the data. Use the lines on your PowerPoint handout for recording your summary. You may do this on your own or with a partner.

33. Summary of MSP Math Data (in terms of differences between district and state averages) Grade 3 -- most consistent improvement in MSP Math performance since Expressions implementation. Grade 4 -- least consistent MSP Math performance -- connected to scope and sequence issues. Grade 5 -- consistent improvement from Spring ‘09 – ’11; dropped in Spr ‘12 but still above pre-Expressions levels. Grade 6 -- improvement in Spr 2012 of about 2 to 4 percentage points over previous years. ▫ 5 schools piloted Grade 6 Expressions in 2011-12 ▫ 6 th graders had been in Expressions for previous three years.

34. District Grade 2 Math Assessment

35. 1 st year of Expressions 1 st year of MTI

36. Relationship between Grade 2 Math Assessment and WASL/MSP Math Correlations between Grade 2 Math Assessment and WASL/MSP Math range from: ▫ low of.55 correlation between Grade 2 and Grade 8 to ▫ high of.60 correlation between Grade 2 and Grade 4. Correlations between Grade 2 Math Assessment and high school End-of-Course tests in Algebra and Geometry are lower (about.48) but still show a relationship.

37. Summary of Grade 2 Math Assessment Data District performance on this assessment of place value understanding basically plateaued from 2002-09. In second year of Expressions, Grade 2 Assessment performance shifted upward and remained at higher level for three years.

38. Science

39. Science WASL/MSP Grade 5 Percent Meeting Standard Spr 07Spr 08Spr 09Spr 10Spr 11Spr 12 District35.240.242.332.060.365.3 State36.543.044.934.055.766.3 Difference - 1.3 - 2.8 - 2.6 - 2.04.6 - 1.0 1 Science Kit Implemented in each grade 3 Science Kits implemented in each grade 1 st year of MTI Decreased Science Kits to 2 1 st year new state standards tested District Science PD on Released Items 1 st year of Benchmark 2 Science Kits Implemented in each grade 1 st year of Expressions

40. Reflection on Math and Science Results Think across the math and science data we have just seen and discussed. Remember that real-life data are typically somewhat messy! What surprises you in the data? What fits with your expectations? What are implications of the Math and Science data for our work as a district? Please record this on your School Team Reflection sheet.

41. Final Team Reflection Discuss with your school team how you will share the big ideas from this data presentation with your staff. Please complete your School Team Reflection sheet and give to district staff.