k12 dddm project - complete

7/21/2019 K12 DDDM Project - Complete

1/20

Name: Elisabeth Clapp

EDU 515

K-12 Envi ronm ents

Data Driven Decision Making Project

In spring 2012, the School Improvement Team at your elementary school reviewed the year-endachievement data and decided that something needed to be done about school-wide declining readingand math scores. The results for 2012 showed that only 70% of the third grade students met orexceeded the states cut-off score for proficientin reading (Subgroup results: White -71%, Black-73%,Hispanic - 68%, Low SES - 72%, ELL - 75%, SWD - 50%). In Math, only 72% of the third grade studentsmet or exceeded the states cut-off score for proficientin math (Subgroup results: White - 73%, Black -69%, Hispanic - 71%, Low SES - 73%, ELL - 70%, SWD - 67%).

Spring 2012 % Proficient

Reading Math

All 3r

Grade 70 72

White 71 73

Black 73 69

Hispanic 68 71

Low SES 72 73

ELL 75 70

SWD 50 67

Your School Improvement Team decided to focus their efforts on improving the third grade performance.This is the grade in which state-wide assessments begin and they wanted to establish a foundation forfuture elementary school success. They consulted with national experts about the school-wide trend andselected new instructional program to implement in reading and math to hopefully improve the results.

Because your school is small, the new program would be implemented in Fall 2012 as a pilot in all 3rd

grade classrooms (only two classes: 12 in one, 13 in the other). The team decided that if the spring 2013results showed improvement in reading and math performance, then in fall 2013 they would maintain theintervention in 3

rdgrade and expand it to 4

thgrade classes. The team set 80% passing as the criterion

forsuccess of the intervention. They set this 80% goal for al l3rd

graders as well as for each subgrou p.

During the summer of 2012, all 3rd

grade teachers were trained in the interventions and then participatedin follow-up training and implementation monitoring during the 2012-13 school year. It is now spring 2013

and as a member of the School Improvement Team you have been selected to evaluate the year-endachievement results. You will need to determine the passing rates and then compare them to the 2013goal as well as to last years performance to see if there has been any improvement. Your role is toanalyze this data for the team to determine if the intervention was successful in reading and math overal land for each subg roupof students.

The data tables (download separate document) contain the scores for the third grade students in readingand math as well as data indicating demographic characteristics. In determining whether the student metthe cut-off score for passing you will use the Standard Error of Measurement and a 68% conf idenceinterval. The cut-off/passing score for proficiency inreading is 547 and the cut-off/passing score for


2/20

proficiency inmath is 534. The reading test has aSEM of 7.46 and themath test has aSEM o f 8.64.When you calculate your results, please be sure to round al l answers to the nearest hun dred/twodecimal places.

Your team has asked you to prepare two versions of the data. First, you need to prepareTables A andB(below) which will provide a tabulation of the data. Then, you alsoneed to submit a wri t ten summ ary(below) describing all of the results and stating your conclusions an drecommendations about theintervention. Because some people will not look at or interpret your tables correctly, be sure to d iscussall of the results from your table in yoursummary as well. Also, when analyzing the results, pleaseassume that the class size and demographic distribution were similar in 2012 and 2013.

1. Your summary (2-3 paragraphs) for the reading intervention should addressa. The results and success of the intervention in reading overallb. The results and success of the intervention in reading for each subgroup separatelyc. A comparison of the results to last years results in reading overalld. A comparison of the results to last years results in reading for each subgroup

separatelye. Your recommendations for continuing the intervention in reading in Fall 2013 with the 3

rd

grade.f. Your thoughts about expansion of the intervention to 4

thgrade classes.

2. Your summary(2-3 paragraphs)for the math intervention should addressa. The results and success of the intervention in math overallb. The results and success of the intervention in math for each subgroup separatelyc. A comparison of the results to last years results in math overalld. A comparison of the results to last years results in math for each subgroup separatelye. Your recommendations for continuing the intervention in math in Fall 2013 with the 3

rd

gradef. Your thoughts about expansion of the intervention to 4

thgrade classes.

Please not ethat the description of the intervention and actual implementation is in tent ionally vague.We are focusing only on an analysis of the scores/data and what this analysis suggests about theintervention. We are not judg ing the type or qual i ty of the intervent ion o r hypoth esizing about

related factors . We are working from the assumption that it was implemented consistently in allclassrooms and that all students gave their best efforts when learning and being assessed at the end ofthe year.

(Please continue to the next page)


3/20


4/20

N = 6

Mean = 551.33

SD = 8.24

% Passing 100%

Successful (Y/N)? Y (6/6)

Change in 75% Passingfrom 2011 results

+25%

5. Students with Disabilities

N = 6

Mean = 543.33

SD = 15.96

% Passing 83.33%



+33.33%


5/20

Reading Summary(Please begin your summary here and continue on the next page if needed.)

Reading Summary:

The results of the 2013 achievement data for reading illustrates overall improvement in

the 3rd-grade reading scores with 84% of the students (21 out of 25) meeting the goal of 80%proficiency rate, set by the school improvement team. The data indicates an increase of 14%

from an overall proficiency of 70% obtained in 2012. The data demonstrates a markedimprovement in reading for the 3rd-grade classes.

The data was also examined according to subgroups; Ethnicity, low socio-economicstatus, English language learners, and students with disabilities, with the same goal of 80%

proficiency as the passing criterion.

White: 10 out of 12 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for asubgroup proficiency rate of 83.33%. The interventions in this subgroup were

successful with the results showing an improvement of 12.33% when compared to2012 data.

Black: 6 out of 8 students in this subgroup were proficient or better with a

passing rate of 75%. The interventions in this subgroup were successful in raising

the scores, but not in meeting the goal of 80% proficiency. The data demonstratesan improvement of 2% when compared to the 2012 data.

Hispanic: 5 out of 5 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a

subgroup proficiency rate of 100%. The interventions in this subgroup weresuccessful with a marked improvement of 32% when compared to 2012 data.

Low Socio-economic status (Low SES): 10 out of 11 students in this subgroupwere proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 90.91%. The

interventions in this subgroup were successful with marked improvement of

18.91% when compared to 2012 data.

English Language Learner (ELL): 6 out of 6 students tested in this subgroup were

proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 100%. The interventions

were successful in this subgroup with an increase of 25% when compared to 2012data.

Students with disabilities (SWD): 5 out of 6 students tested in this subgroup wereproficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 83.33%. The interventionsin this subgroup were successful at meeting the goal and showed a marked

improvement of 33.33% when compared to the 2012 data.

Recommendations:


6/20

Based on the analysis of the 2013 achievement test data, I recommend that the

intervention instructional program continue for the 2013-2014 school year in the 3rd-grade and

expand the program into the 4th-grade. The overall goal was met with a 14% gain over 2012.

All of the subgroups demonstrated improvement, and it would be of value to give theinterventions one more year to see if the improvement continues and all of the subgroups meet

the goal. However, if at the end of the 2013-2014 school year, the goal is still not reached, Irecommend that other intervention programs be explored to achieve the reading goal of 80%proficiency in all of the subgroups.


7/20

Table BMathematics Achievement Results

1. All 3rd

Grade Students

N = 25

Mean = 535.28

SD = 21.74

% Passing 76%

Successful (Y/N)? N (19/25)


+4%

2. Racial/Ethnic Diversity

White Black Hispanic

N = 12 8 5

Mean = 534.83 537.75 532.40

SD = 24.54 25.58 3.65

% Passing 75% 62.50% 100%

Successful (Y/N)? N (9/12) N (5/8) Y (5/5)

Change in

73% - 69% - 71%Passing from 2011results

+2% -6.50% +29%

3. Low Socio-economic Status (defined as qualifying for free/reduced lunch)

N = 11

Mean = 536.91

SD = 21.60

% Passing 81.81%


Change in 73%Passing from 2011results

+8.81%

4. English Language Learners


8/20

N = 6

Mean = 531.33

SD = 4.18

% Passing 100%



+30%

5. Students with Disabilities

N = 6

Mean = 525.67

SD = 15.25

% Passing 66.67%

Successful (Y/N)? N (4/6)


-0.33%


9/20

Mathematics Summary(Please begin your summary here and continue on the next page if needed.)

Mathematics Summary:

The results of the 2013 achievement data for mathematics illustrates improvement in the3rd-grade math scores, with a proficiency rate of 76%. Unfortunately, the goal of 80%

proficiency rate, set by the school improvement team is not reached. Overall, mathematics scores

increased by 4% from the scores obtained in 2012, with an overall proficiency of 72%. Thecurrent data indicates 2 of the 6 subgroups scores decreased, even though 19 of the 25 students

scored proficient or better overall.

The data was also examined according to subgroups; Ethnicity, low socio-economicstatus, English language learners, and students with disabilities, with the same goal of 80%

proficiency as the passing criterion, only 3 of the 6 subgroups met or exceeded the goal.

White: 9 out of 12 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for asubgroup proficiency rate of 75%. The interventions in this subgroup were not

successful, in meeting 80% proficiency rate, but the results did indicate anincrease of 2% when compared to 2012 data.

Black: 5 out of 8 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for a

subgroup proficiency rate of 62.50%. The interventions in this subgroup were notsuccessful and fell short of the 80% goal. These results demonstrate a decrease of

6.50% when compared to the 2012 data. Blacks were 1 of the 2 subgroups

showing a decline in scores.

Hispanic: 5 out of 5 students in this subgroup were proficient or better for asubgroup proficiency rate of 100%. The interventions in this subgroup were a

success with an improvement of 29% when compared to 2012 data.

Low Socio-economic status (Low SES): 9 out of 11 students tested scored

proficient or better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 81.81%. The interventionsin this subgroup were successful, and there was an 8.81% increase when

compared to 2012 data.

English Language Learner (ELL): 6 out of 6 students tested scored proficient or

better for a subgroup proficiency rate of 100%. The interventions were a success

in this subgroup with an increase in 30% when compared to the 2012 data. TheEnglish Language Learner subgroup was 1 of 3 subgroups to surpass the 80%proficiency goal in mathematics and 1 of 2 subgroups to obtain 100% proficiency.

Students with disabilities (SWD): 4 out of 6 students tested scored proficient or

better for a subgroup proficiency rating of 66.67%. The interventions in thissubgroup were not successful at meeting the goal and also showed decreased

performance of 0.33% when compared to the 2012 data.


10/20

Recommendations:

Based on the analysis of the data from the spring 2013 Achievement Test data, I wouldrecommend continuing with the instructional programs used for intervention in mathematics for

the 2013-2014, 3rd and 4th grades. The results of the 2013 achievement tests show overallimprovement in student performance yet a decline in 2 of the 6 subgroups, with only half of the 6subgroups meeting the 80% proficiency goal. This recommendation is the result of 4% overall

improvement and a significant improvement in the 2 subgroups obtaining 100%: Hispanics

(+29%) and English Language Learners (+30%). There may be some value to the instructionalprograms when working with these subgroups and are worth further evaluation based on the

analysis. The progress should be monitored and evaluated after one year. If improvement does

not continue then this intervention program should be discontinued.


11/20

Reading and Math Scores to determine SD

Name Reading X - M Reading (XM)2 Math X-M Math (X-M)

2

Alejandro 555 555.56 = -0.56 0.31 535 - 535.28= -0.28 0.08

Alysa 596 - 555.56 = +40.44 1635.39 602 - 535.28= +66.72 4451.56

Anthony 620 - 555.56 = +64.44 4152.51 599- 535.28= +63.72 4060.24

Andrea 546 -555.56 = -9.56 91.39 526- 535.28 = -9.28 86.12

Barry 570 - 555.56 = +14.44 208.51 540 - 535.28 = +4.72 22.28

Becca 554 - 555.56 = -1.56 2.43 527- 535.28 = -8.28 68.56

Becky 562 - 555.56 = +6.44 41.47 532- 535.28 = -3.28 10.76

Brandon 549 - 555.56 = -6.56 43.03 539- 535.28 = +3.72 13.84

Brenda 570 - 555.56 = 14.44 208.51 524 - 535.28 = -11.28 127.24

Cassandra 548 - 555.56 = -7.56 57.15 534- 535.28 = -1.28 1.64

Dan 550 - 555.56 = -5.56 30.91 534- 535.28 = -1.28 1.64

Gary 569 - 555.56 = +13.44 180.63 541- 535.28 = +5.72 32.72

Jacob 565 - 555.56 = +9.44 89.11 526- 535.28 = -9.28 86.12

Jessie 539 - 555.56 = -16.56 274.23 525- 535.28 = -10.28 105.68

Jimmie 539 - 555.56 = -16.56 274.23 522- 535.28 =-13.28 176.36

Katie 560 - 555.56 = +4.44 19.71 543- 535.28 = +7.72 59.60

Kristen 547 - 555.56 = -8.56 73.27 523- 535.28 = -12.28 150.80

Lucinda 540 - 555.56 = -15.56 242.11 528- 535.28 = -7.28 53.00

Marcus 553 - 555.56 = -2.56 6.55 526- 535.28 = -9.28 86.12

Maria 556 - 555.56 = +0.44 0.19 529- 535.28 = -6.28 39.44

Nate 511 - 555.56 = -44.56 1985.59 497- 535.28 = -38.28 1465.36

Pablo 563 - 555.56 = +7.44 55.35 536- 535.28 = +0.72 0.52

Patrick 537 - 555.56 = -18.56 344.47 520- 535.28 = -15.28 233.48

Tammie 540 - 555.56 = -15.56 242.11 539- 535.28 = +3.72 13.84

Taryn 550 - 555.56 = -5.56 30.91 535- 535.28 = -0.28 0.08

N = 25 X-M = 0 (X-M)2=10290.07 X-M = 0

(X-M)2=

11347.08


12/20

Mean = X/N 555.56 535.28

SD = 20.71 21.74

SEM= 7.46 8.64

Reading SD = (X-M)2

/ N1 = 10290.07/24= 428.75= 20.71

Math SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 11347.08/24= 472.80=21.74

Reading: SEM = 7.46, 547 = proficiency cut-off, using 68% confidence interval

Name Obtained Score 68% Confidence Interval OS+/- 1 SEM

Alejandro 555 Y

Alysa 596 Y

Anthony 620 Y

Andrea 546 Y

Barry 570 Y

Becca 554 Y

Becky 562 Y

Brandon 549 Y

Brenda 570 Y

Cassandra 548 Y

Dan 550 Y

Gary 569 Y

Jacob 565 Y

Jessie 539 N

Jimmie 539 N

Katie 560 Y

Kristen 547 Y

Lucinda 540 Y

Marcus 553 Y

Maria 556 Y


13/20

Nate 511 N

Pablo 563 Y

Patrick 537 N

Tammie 540 Y

Taryn 550 Y

EthnicityWhite

Name Reading X - M Reading (XM)2 Proficient

Alysa 596 - 555.67= +40.33 1626.51 Y

Andrea 546 - 555.67 = -9.67 93.51 Y

Barry 570 - 555.67 = +14.33 205.35 Y

Becca 554 - 555.67= -1.67 2.79 Y

Becky 562 - 555.67 = +6.33 40.07 Y

Brandon 549 - 555.67 = -6.67 44.49 Y

Gary 569 - 555.67 = +13.33 177.69 Y

Jacob 565 - 555.67 = +9.33 87.05 Y

Jimmie 539-555.67 = -16.67 277.89 N

Katie 560 - 555.67 = +4.33 18.75 Y

Kristen 547- 555.67 = -8.67 75.17 Y

Nate 511 - 555.67 = -44.67 1995.41 N

N = 12

M =555.67 (X-M) = -0.04 (X-M)2= 4644.68 10/12 X 100 = 83.33%

SD = (X-M)2

/ N 1 = 4644.68/11 = 422.24 = 20.54

Black



14/20

Anthony 620 - 557.38 = +62.62 3921.26 Y

Brenda 570 - 557.38 = +12.62 159.26 Y

Dan 550 - 557.38 = -7.38 54.46 Y

Jessie 539- 557.38 = -18.38 337.82 N

Marcus 553 - 557.38 = -4.38 19.18 Y

Patrick 537 - 557.38 = -20.38 415.34 N

Tammie 540 - 557.38 = -17.38 302.06 Y

Taryn 550 - 557.38 = -7.38 54.46 Y

N = 8M = 4459/8 =

557.38 (X-M) =-0.04 (X-M)2= 5263.84 6/8 x 100 =75%

SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 5263.84/7 = 751.98 =27.42

Hispanic


Alejandro 555 - 552.40 = +2.60 6.76 Y

Cassandra 548 - 552.40 = -4.40 19.36 Y

Lucinda 540 - 552.40 = -12.40 153.76 Y

Maria 556 - 552.40 = +3.60 12.96 Y

Pablo 563 - 552.40 = +10.60 112.36 Y

N = 5

M = 552.40 (X-M) = 0 (X-M)2=305.20

5/5 x 100 =100%

SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 305.20/4 = 76.30 = 8.73

Low Socio-economic (Free Lunch)


Anthony 620 - 559.00 = +61.00 3721.00 Y

Barry 570 - 559.00 = +11.00 121.00 Y


15/20

Cassandra 548 - 559.00 = -11.00 121.00 Y

Dan 550 - 559.00 = -9.00 81.00 Y

Jacob 565 - 559.00 = +6.00 36.00 Y

Kristen 547 - 559.00 = -12.00 144.00 Y

Marcus 553 - 559.00 = -6.00 36.00 Y

Maria 556 - 559.00 = -3.00 9.00 Y

Pablo 563 - 559.00 = +4.00 16.00 Y

Patrick 537 - 559.00 = -22.00 484.00 N

Tammie 540 - 559.00 = -19.00 361.00 Y

N = 11M = 559.00 (X-M) = 0 (X-M)

2=5130 10/11 x 100 =90.91%

SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 5130.00/10 = 513.00 = 22.65

English Language Learners (ELL)


Alejandro 555 - 551.33 = +3.67 13.47 Y

Andrea 546 - 551.33 = -5.33 28.41 Y

Cassandra 548 - 551.33 = -3.33 11.09 Y

Lucinda 540 - 551.33 = -11.33 128.37 Y

Maria 556 - 551.33 = +4.67 21.81 Y

Pablo 563 - 551.33 = +11.67 136.19 Y

N = 6M = 551.33 (X-M) = +0.02 (X-M)

2=339.34

6/6 x 100 = 100%

SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 339.34/5 = 67.87 = 8.24

Students with Disabilities (SWD)


Brandon 549 - 543.33 =+5.67 31.92 Y

Dan 550 - 543.33 = +6.67 44.49 Y

Kristen 547 - 543.33= +3.67 13.47 Y

Marcus 553 - 543.33 = +9.67 93.51 Y


16/20

Nate 511 - 543.33 = -32.33 1045.23 N

Taryn 550 - 543.33 = +6.67 44.49

Y

N = 6

M = 543.33 (X-M) = +0.02 (X-M)2

=1273.11 5/6x 100 = 83.33%

SD = (X-M)2

/ N 1 = 1273.11/5 = 254.67 = 15.96

Math: SEM = 8.64; 534 = proficiency cut-off, using 68% confidence interval

Name Obtained Score 68% Confidence Interval (+/- 1 SEM)

Alejandro 535 Y

Alysa 602 Y

Anthony 599Y

Andrea 526 Y

Barry 540 Y

Becca 527 Y

Becky 532 Y

Brandon 539 Y

Brenda 524 N

Cassandra 534 Y

Dan 534 Y

Gary 541 Y

Jacob 526 Y

Jessie 525 N

Jimmie 522 N

Katie 543 Y

Kristen 523 N

Lucinda 528 Y

Marcus 526 Y

Maria 529 Y

Nate 497 N


17/20

Pablo 536 Y

Patrick 520 N

Tammie 539 Y

Taryn 535 Y

Ethnicity

White

Name Math X - M Math (XM)2 Proficient

Alysa 602- 534.83 = +67.17 4511.81 Y

Andrea 526- 534.83 = -8.83 77.97 Y

Barry 540- 534.83 = +5.17 26.73 Y

Becca 527- 534.83 = -7.83 61.31 Y

Becky 532- 534.83 = -2.83 8.01 Y

Brandon 539 - 534.83 = +4.17 17.39 Y

Gary 541- 534.83 = +6.17 38.07 Y

Jacob 526 - 534.83 = -8.83 77.97 Y

Jimmie 522- 534.83 = -12.83 164.61 N

Katie 543- 534.83 =+8.17 66.75 Y

Kristen 523 - 534.83 = -11.83 139.95 N

Nate 497 - 534.83 = -37.83 1431.11 N

N = 12M = 534.83 (X-M) = +0.04 (X-M)

2= 6621.68 9/12 x 100 = 75%

SD = (X-M)2

/ N 1 = 6621.68/11 = 601.97= 24.54

Black


Anthony 599- 537.75 = +61.25 3751.56 Y

Brenda 524- 537.75 = -13.75 189.06 N

Dan 534- 537.75 = -3.75 14.06 Y

Jessie 525- 537.75 = -12.75 162.56 N

Marcus 526 - 537.75 = -11.75 138.06 Y


18/20

Patrick 520- 537.75 = -17.75 315.06 N

Tammie 539- 537.75 = +1.25 1.56 Y

Taryn 535- 537.75 = -2.75 7.56 Y

N = 8M = 537.75 (X-M) = 0 (X-M)2=4579.485/8 x 100 =62.50%

SD = (X-M)2

/ N 1 = 4579.48/7 = 654.21 =25.58

Hispanic


Alejandro 535- 532.40 = +2.6 6.76 Y

Cassandra 534- 532.40 = +1.60 2.56 Y

Lucinda 528- 532.40 = -4.40 19.36 Y

Maria 529- 532.40 = -3.40 11.56 Y

Pablo 536- 532.40 = +3.60 12.96 Y

N = 5M = 532.40 (X-M) = 0 (X-M)

2=53.20 5/5 x 100 = 100%

SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 53.20/4 = 13.30 =3.65

Low Socio-economic (Free Lunch)


Anthony 599 - 536.91 = +62.09 3855.17 Y

Barry 540 - 536.91 = +3.09 9.55 Y

Cassandra 534- 536.91 = -2.91 8.47 Y

Dan 534- 536.91 = -2.91 8.47 Y

Jacob 526- 536.91 = -10.91 119.03 Y

Kristen 523 - 536.91 = -13.91 193.49 N

Marcus 526 - 536.91 = -10.91 119.03 Y

Maria 529 - 536.91 = -7.91 62.57 Y

Pablo 536- 536.91 = -0.91 0.83 Y

Patrick 520 - 536.91 = -16.91 285.95 N

Tammie 539 - 536.91 = +2.09 4.37 Y


19/20

N = 11M = 536.91 (X-M) = -0.01 (X-M)

2= 4666.93 9/11 x 100 =81.81%

SD = (X-M)2 / N 1 = 4666.93/10 = 466.69 =21.60

English Language Learners (ELL)


Alejandro 535- 531.33= +3.67 13.47 Y

Andrea 526 - 531.33 = -5.33 28.41 Y

Cassandra 534- 531.33= +2.67 7.13 Y

Lucinda 528 - 531.33 = -3.33 11.09 Y

Maria 529 - 531.33 = -2.33 6.25 Y

Pablo 536 - 531.33 = +4.67 21.81 Y

N = 6M = 531.33 (X-M) = +0.02 (X-M)

2= 88.16 6/6 X 100 = 100%

SD = (X-M)2

/ N 1 = 87.34/5 = 17.47 = 4.18

Students with Disabilities (SWD)


Brandon 539 - 525.67= +13.33 177.69 Y

Dan 534- 525.67 = +8.33 69.39 Y

Kristen 523- 525.67 = -2.67 7.13 N

Marcus 526 - 525.67 = +0.33 0.11 Y

Nate 497 - 525.67 = -28.67 821.97 N

Taryn 535 - 525.67 = +9.33 87.05 Y

N = 6M = 525.67 (X-M) = -0.02 (X-M)

2=1163.34

4/6 x 100 = 66.67 %

SD = (X-M)2

/ N 1 = 1163.34/5 = 232.67 = 15.25


20/20

k12 dddm project - complete

Documents