Washington State SBAC 2016 Scores Released
OSPI released the SBAC scores today. Scores increased but then again, you have to see where they started.
The high school scores for LA went from 26 to 76% which is quite a wild swing but the scores for math are dismal.
Tenth and eleventh graders again opted out below the 95% needed participation rate (92.9% and 88.1%, respectively).
Seattle Schools' scores were mostly stagnant by grade level although the high school scores for LA went from about 10% last year to almost 80% this year. Third grade math seems to should the most growth. I await the district's analysis.
For the Class of 2017, three out of four students (75.5 percent) are college and career ready in ELA as they enter their senior year, compared to one out of four students (26.1 percent) of the Class of 2016 as they entered their senior year. The 75.5 percent includes students who met as 10th graders and those who met as 11th graders. In math, the proficiency rate for the Class of 2017 is 21.8 percent, compared to 13.7 percent of the Class of 2016.
Students in the Class of 2018 – 10th graders in Spring 2016 – also performed well on the Smarter Balanced ELA test. A total of 70.8 percent who tested met the college- and career-ready standard in ELA and 55.0 percent met the same standard in math.
Participation
Schools tested 97-98 percent of their students in grades 3-8, with no more than 3 percent of students in any single grade refusing to take the tests. For 11th graders, the refusal rate was larger. Including students who passed the test as 10th graders in 2015, 11th grade participation in the ELA test was 88.1 percent and 61.4 percent in the math test. By comparison, the participation rates in 2015 were 53.3 percent for ELA and 49.6 percent for math.
Annual Assessment State Score Release
Of note, "other states have not released their SBAC scores yet." How is this helpful to anyone?
Page 11 of this document has a pixy-stick-like graph the likes of which I have never seen before.
The high school scores for LA went from 26 to 76% which is quite a wild swing but the scores for math are dismal.
Tenth and eleventh graders again opted out below the 95% needed participation rate (92.9% and 88.1%, respectively).
Seattle Schools' scores were mostly stagnant by grade level although the high school scores for LA went from about 10% last year to almost 80% this year. Third grade math seems to should the most growth. I await the district's analysis.
Percent of students proficient, 2015-16
ELA
|
Math
|
|||||
Grade
|
2015
|
2016
|
Diff.
|
2015
|
2016
|
Diff.
|
3
|
51.7
|
54.3
|
2.6
|
56.4
|
58.9
|
2.5
|
4
|
54.1
|
57.0
|
2.9
|
53.7
|
55.4
|
1.7
|
5
|
57.1
|
60.1
|
3.0
|
47.7
|
49.2
|
1.5
|
6
|
53.5
|
56.5
|
3.0
|
45.2
|
48.0
|
2.8
|
7
|
56.2
|
58.5
|
2.3
|
47.6
|
49.8
|
2.2
|
8
|
56.4
|
59.7
|
3.3
|
45.8
|
47.8
|
2.0
|
Students in the Class of 2018 – 10th graders in Spring 2016 – also performed well on the Smarter Balanced ELA test. A total of 70.8 percent who tested met the college- and career-ready standard in ELA and 55.0 percent met the same standard in math.
Participation
Schools tested 97-98 percent of their students in grades 3-8, with no more than 3 percent of students in any single grade refusing to take the tests. For 11th graders, the refusal rate was larger. Including students who passed the test as 10th graders in 2015, 11th grade participation in the ELA test was 88.1 percent and 61.4 percent in the math test. By comparison, the participation rates in 2015 were 53.3 percent for ELA and 49.6 percent for math.
Annual Assessment State Score Release
Of note, "other states have not released their SBAC scores yet." How is this helpful to anyone?
Page 11 of this document has a pixy-stick-like graph the likes of which I have never seen before.
Comments
I suspect the large increase in percent proficient is because more students took the test. If you don't take it, you're not considered proficient. That likely explains a lot of the math vs. LA disparity, too, since more HS students took the LA portion. There were probably some who didn't need it since they'd already passed the EOCs.
HF
Would you or anyone else mind explaining to me how these data speak to the cohort model? Or whether any conclusions can be drawn from these data to set district policy?
Thanks for any insight.
-SPSParent
History
The district policy states The framework for such programs or services will encompass, but is not limited to, the following objectives:
A. Expansion of students’ academic and intellectual skills in every year of education;
B. Stimulation of students’ intellectual curiosity, independence and responsibility;
C. Development of students’ social and emotional wellbeing; and D. Development of students’ originality and creativity.
"Program Evaluation, Review & Monitoring
Districts are required to set program goals, establish a plan for how district will evaluation the program goals and measure student achievement outcomes.
WAC 392-170-030 Substance of annual school district plan -
The school district's annual plan shall contain the following:
(3) A description of the highly capable program goals;
(4) A description of the services the highly capable program will offer;
(5) A description of the instructional program the highly capable program will provide;
(7) A description of how the highly capable program will be evaluated that includes information on how the district's highly capable program goals and student achievement outcomes will be measured;
FWIW
The aggregated data (based on grade level assessments) comparing HCC in cohort vs HCC qualified/not in cohort was questionable in it's presentation - the data was not broken down by school or grade cohort, elementary was lumped with middle school, and it was based on what, one year of data with a new assessment? Were the differences in scores possibly attributable to lack of appropriate curriculum? Or something else? In what grades and at what schools were differences most pronounced? Is the data consistent from year to year? So little was presented...it's difficult to speculate and would be irresponsible to make programming changes based on the data as presented. The data seemed like a good starting point for more analysis, and nothing more.
The district could use other means of evaluation, including out of level testing, district based assessments, parent/student surveys, etc., but simply chooses to use grade level state assessments, which are readily available, with no added cost. Shouldn't grade level tests be the first, but not only, means of comparison? If students in the cohort aren't performing as well as or better than similarly identified students, there is reason for more evaluation.
-abc
Personally, I think the program is weakened, and performance in the self contained model is lower because it has such a high private test in rate. It's pretty obvious that most private testers enter the program. Most district testers remain in regular schools.
History
According to data from AL (few years back, when retesting was required), most students who qualified chose to enroll and not remain at their neighborhood school. That may have changed somewhat as students who qualify now maintain their eligibility if they stay in their neighborhood school. Many families may choose to remain in their neighborhood elementary and make the switch at middle school. If students are opting out of the cohort, I would guess they are most likely at an option school or a high performing neighborhood school.
-abc
To note, I will moderate comments on that thread.
When looking at scores, keep in mind the opt outs are averaged in, unless you look at the tables of grade level results where "Meeting standard excluding No score" is reported. Pass rates are several percentage points higher once you take into account No scores. District wide, "No score" rates gradually rose by each grade level, from around 3% in Gr3 to around 7% in Gr8. Thornton Creek has an especially high opt out rate - as high as 52%. When you exclude the No scores, TC pass rates almost double.
The tests also have less of a ceiling this year (was the previous version not an adaptable test, but this past year's administration was?). You can see the difference by selecting "scale" when viewing results.
-onward
They should disaggregate the data by grade before making any claims. You cannot make any judgments on elementary self contained when it is lumped in with the middle school mess.
NP
The 'pixie stick' lines on page 11 are trend lines with only two data points. Once a 3rd data point is added, the lines will look more like a typical data trend line.
data geek
developing. It ignores the fact that to maintain a particular rank, a child must not only get better each year but must improve at the same rate as others who had the same initial score. Using status scores such as percentile ranks (or derivatives such as IQs) masks this year-to-year growth. If the same dimension were labeled "language development" rather than "giftedness," then we would expect to find some whose development was unusual at one point in time but not unusual at another."
From David Lohman
FWIW
Seattle Times August 17, 2016 State schools chief"ecstatic"over better student test results
Disproportionality continues.
Clumsy me
-Arghh
Mercer Middle School (69% FRL) still seems strong, comparatively. Mercer outperformed Jane Addams (29% FRL) for 8th grade. Aki Kurose had significant gains for Gr8 ELA and Math.
Gr8 Math meeting standard (excluding No scores):
Aki Kurose 57.8%
Denny 59.5%
Eckstein 75.3%
Hamilton 85.8%
JAMS 68.9%
Madison 59.2%
Mercer 72.2%
Washington 64.0%
Whitman 63.2%
Gr8 ELA meeting standard (excluding No scores):
Aki Kurose 57.8%
Denny 68.5%
Eckstein 87.6%
Hamilton 84.6%
JAMS 67.0%
Madison 66.3%
Mercer 68.7%
Washington 69.7%
Whitman 67.9%
-onward
Aki 55% total low income 8th grade students = 90
Denny 53% (105)
Eckstein 34% (11)
Hamilton 56% (14)
JAMS 31% (15)
Madison 40% (25)
Mercer 64% (145)
Washington 43% (69)
Whitman 25% (20)
I'm not sure this is actually useful information when some schools have less than 30 low income students per grade. (Though that's news to me.)
Here is the number of low income 8th grade students in each region:
NE 26
NW 34
Central 83
SE 235
SW 130
This does not include the 88 students attending K-8 schools.
that you have continually stated that students from "poor families" are unable
to attain high levels of achievement due to cognitive deficiencies related to
poverty?
FWIW
2015-16 Gr8 Math meeting standard by OSPI category
(%age pt. increase/decrease from 2014-15)
Asian 89.6% (+6.2)
Black/African American 45.3% (+6.3)
Hispanic/Latino 59.1% (+9.1)
White 85.7% (+3.1)
Limited English 52.5% (+14.8)
Low income 64.1 (+0.9)
-onward