Lydia Dunn

EDU 360
Dr. Rubio
February 2014

REVISED Tech Assessment One

District Results:
First, I formed the two categories, one to include those students who scored below basic
and basic, and one to include those that scored proficient and above. In Grade Six, all of the
different years met the goal of 50% or more of the students scoring in the second category. In
Grade Seven, the percentages were shaky. Only two years did 50% or more students score in the
upper category. The remaining three years had more than 50% of the students score in the lower
category. This could be due to the increasing difficulty of the content knowledge at Seventh
Grade. However, the goal is 50% of the students to be passing at proficient or above, and this
was not achieved for three years. In Grade Eight, once again, only two years had 50% or more of
their students scoring in the proficient and above category. The other three years this goal was
not met. In fact, during 2011-2012, the goal was severely missed as only 37% of the students
scored as proficient or above.

REVISION:
With the correctly calculated percentages, the table below shows which years the cohorts
reached the goal of 50% and above of the students scoring proficient or higher. Note the
changes to Eighth Grade, however cohort 1 and cohort 2 were very close to the goal, achieving
49% proficient and above. Cohort 3 is still very concerning, with only 37% scoring proficient
and above in their Eighth Grade year.

Cohort 1 2 3
6
th
grade MET MET MET
7
th
grade MET NOT MET MET
8
th
grade NOT MET NOT MET NOT MET


Based on this evidence, I would be concerned for the teachers of seventh and eighth
grade. They need to be meeting their goal of at least 50% of students scoring at proficient or
above. Evaluations and assessments of individual classrooms and schools should be made in
order to identify how the district must increase their student proficiency percentages.

In order to look more closely at the district data, I organized it into three cohorts that had
full data from grade six to grade eight. These are designated by the numbers 1, 2, and 3, with
colors blue, maroon, and green in that order for ones convenience. These colors also match the
graphs.
Cohort one had the highest achieving sixth grade year, with 59% of the students scoring
proficient or higher. Then, the numbers gradually dropped off, to 55% proficient or above in
seventh grade and 49% proficient or above in eighth grade. The number of students increased
over the years, however the scores would hopefully be increasing or at least staying consistent
throughout the three years. The trend line for students that scored in the below basic to basic
category is positive, whereas the trend line for students that scored in the proficient or above
category is negative. I would be concerned for this cohort as they are continually decreasing in
proficiency.
Cohort two has the most consistent trend lines and percentages. With percentages at 54%,
48%, and 50% over the three years, this cohort seemed to follow the pattern of how many
students were enrolled. At 233 students in sixth grade, 218 students in seventh grade, and 224
students in eighth grade, cohort one was the most stable achieving of the three cohorts. The trend
lines of the percentages of students in both the upper and the lower category are almost perfectly
straight, averaging out around 50%. This is a positive, however if I were the superintendent, I
would want to see a little more increase in upper percentages.
Finally, cohort three is the most concerning of the years. The number of students was
consistent at around 240 a year, however the proficiency percentages ranged from 52%, to 51%,
and finally at 37%. Sixth and seventh grade percentages were acceptable; however the last year
of data is very concerning. Since the number of students did not increase or decrease
significantly, I would want more information about the schools and classrooms in order to figure
out why the scores decreased by so much. The large jump from 51% proficient and above to only
37% is very concerning.

A summary of the three years of data on the three cohorts is shown below.

REVISED CHART




Grade Level:
For the grade level data, 16% scored at below basic, 42% scored at basic, 26% scored at
proficient, and 16% scored at advanced. This computes into 58% in the lower than proficient
category and 42% in the proficient and above category. Unfortunately, the goal for 50% or more
students scoring proficient or above was not met for this grade level.

0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11
Prof.-Adv.
1 2 3
REVISED CHART



I also looked the students proficiency based on their English proficiency and their
teacher. The students were sorted into the two different teachers, A and B. Out of the 23 students
in teacher As classroom, 13.04% scored at below basic, 43.48% at basic (56.52% total for the
lower category), 30.42% at proficient, and 13.04% at advanced (43.48% total for the upper
category). The goal of 50% or more students scoring proficient or above was not met, however I
did think it was a positive that a higher percentage of their students scored in at the proficient
level than the grade level total (26% vs. teacher As 30.43%). Higher concentrations of students
were at the basic and proficient levels than at the two opposing ends (basic and advanced) in
teacher As classroom. Teacher B had 2 students. 18.52% scored at below basic, 40.74% scored
at basic, 22.22% scored at proficient, and 18.52% scored at advanced. Although there are more
students that scored in the advanced category in this classroom, there is also a higher percentage
that scored in the lower category, almost 60%. Comparing teacher A and teacher B, I think
teacher B needs to evaluate her students and work on achieving proficiency.


Goal not met
58%
Goal met
42%
Grade Level Data
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
50.00%
Below Basic Basic Proficient Advanced
Teacher A vs. Teacher B Scores
Teacher A
Teacher B


Looking at the students scored based on their English proficiency was very intriguing.
There were 37 English proficient (EP) students and 13 Limited English proficient (LEP)
students. Of the EP students, 5.41% scored at below basic, 45.95% at basic (51.35% total in the
lower category), 29.73% at proficient, and 18.92% at advanced (48.65% total in the upper
category). The goal of 50% or higher of students in the proficient or above category was not met
still. Looking at the numbers, only 2 students scored below basic, which is very positive. Of the
13 LEP students, 46.15% scored at basic. This is huge! Clearly, these lower scores are making
the overall percentages of proficiency go down, for good reason that should be addressed
appropriately by the teachers; however the lower scores are not bringing down the overall
percentages by much as we saw that even just the EP students still had not met the 50% goal.
The remainder of the scores for the LEP students are 30.77% at basic (76.92% in the lower
category), 15.38% at proficient, and 7.69% at advanced (23.08% in the upper category). The
lower scores for LEP students have good reason behind them, which is why testing of LEP
students is so controversial. Is the testing really assessing what they know? Or is it confusing
their language skills with content knowledge? These are questions administration and teachers
must ask in order to not skew data.
In order to have a well-rounded picture of the classroom data, I combined the information
looking at the separate teachers and the LEP students. Teacher A has 6 LEP students and teacher
B has 7 LEP students. I do not think that this would skew the data negatively for teacher B and
find this connection without much meaning in this instance.





0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
Below
Basic
Basic Proficient Advanced
EP vs. LEP Percentages
English Proficient (EP)
Limited English
Proficient (LEP/EL)