View
20
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Performance on the 10th-Grade WASL: Summary of Findings to Date. Presentation to the House Education Committee January 19, 2007 Robert (Barney) Barnoski, Ph.D. Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Who We Are. Washington State Institute for Public Policy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Performance on the Performance on the 10th-Grade WASL: 10th-Grade WASL:
Summary of Findings to DateSummary of Findings to Date
Presentation to theHouse Education Committee
January 19, 2007
Robert (Barney) Barnoski, Ph.D.Washington State Institute for Public Policy
2 of 25
Who We AreWho We Are
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
• Created by the 1983 Legislature• Conducts non-partisan research on topics assigned by
the Legislature or board of directors
Representative Helen Sommers Robin Arnold-Williams, DSHS Representative Fred Jarrett Victor Moore, OFMRepresentative Phyllis Kenney Sandra Archibald, University of WashingtonHouse position pending Andrew Bodman, Western Washington University Senator Karen Fraser Les Purce, The Evergreen State CollegeSenator Jeanne Kohl-Welles Robert Rosenman, Washington State UniversitySenator Pam Roach Ken Conte, House Office of Program ResearchSenator Mark Schoesler Richard Rodger, Senate Committee Services
3 of 25
Conduct a statistical analysis of WASL data to:
Increase understanding of students who did not meet standard,
Identify the characteristics of those students, and
Identify possible barriers to success.
[SSB 6618]
Evaluate the Promoting Academic Success program for students who did not meet standard.
[ESSB 6386]
Study Direction From the 2006 LegislatureStudy Direction From the 2006 Legislature
4 of 25
OutlineOutline
1. Overall WASL findings Strands
Subject-area results
Open-ended vs. multiple-choice
2. Characteristics of students who did not meet standard on the spring 2006 WASL
3. Evaluation of Promoting Academic Success (PAS) in summer 2006
Participation in PAS
Results from the August retake
5 of 25
Percentage of StudentsPercentage of Students Achieving Achieving Proficiency in MATH StrandsProficiency in MATH Strands
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
60%
65%
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Content 1 Content 2Content 3 Content 4Content 5 Process 1Process 2 Process 3
6 of 25
The percentage of students who are proficient in reading and math strands varies considerably from one year to the next.
This variability diminishes the use of strand results to diagnose areas in need of improvement.
Variability in strand-level results does not diminish the overall reliability of the WASL.
Subject-Area Strand ResultsSubject-Area Strand Results
7 of 25
Correlations Among Reading, Writing, Correlations Among Reading, Writing, and Math Subject-Area Scoresand Math Subject-Area Scores
The correlations among subject-area results are strong:
0
No Association
1.0
Perfect Association
.10 .90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20
WRITINGand
MATH0.62
READING and
WRITING0.64
READINGand
MATH0.69
8 of 25
Average Math Score by Reading Score Average Math Score by Reading Score
300
350
400
450
500
550
300 350 400 450 500 550
Reading Score
Mat
h S
core
Math Score = Reading Score
10 point increase in reading = 7.5 point increase in math
Students who do well in math also do well in reading and writing, but the converse is not necessarily true:
9 of 25
Correlations Between Raw Scores on Correlations Between Raw Scores on Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice QuestionsOpen-Ended and Multiple-Choice Questions
0
No Association
1.0
Perfect Association
.10 .90.80.70.60.50.40.30.20
MATH0.83
READING0.65
10 of 25
Most students who do well on multiple-choice questions also do well on open-ended questions, and vice versa.
That is, multiple-choice and open-ended questions require a similar ability level, especially in math.
Performance on Open-Ended and Performance on Open-Ended and Multiple-Choice QuestionsMultiple-Choice Questions
11 of 25
Summary: Summary: Overall WASL FindingsOverall WASL Findings
• Strand results are unreliable and cannot be used to diagnose student performance
• Reading, writing, and math results are strongly correlated
• Raw scores on open-ended and multiple-choice questions are strongly correlated
12 of 25
Factors Affecting WASL PerformanceFactors Affecting WASL Performance
Student Characteristics
ClassroomInstruction
CurriculumAlignment
Student Performance
on WASL
ExtraAssistance
School Environment
UnknownFactors
13 of 25
Student Characteristics Associated With Student Characteristics Associated With WASL PerformanceWASL Performance
Lower met-standard rates
• Non-Asian minorities
• Poverty
• English language learners
• Students with disabilities
• Male students (reading and writing)
Higher met-standard rates
• Asian American
• European American
• Grade point average
• Parents’ educational attainment
• Male students (math)
14 of 25
WASL Met-Standard Rates by Race/EthnicityWASL Met-Standard Rates by Race/Ethnicity
88 91
7970
76
88 88
7567
75
63 61
3730 27
0
20
40
60
80
100
Asian(7.9%)
European(71.6%)
Native(2.5%)
Hispanic(10.3%)
African(4.8%)
Reading Writing Math
15 of 25
WASL Met-Standard Rates by PovertyWASL Met-Standard Rates by Poverty
91
73
89
7163
34
0
20
40
60
80
100
Not free or reduced lunch(70.5%)
Free or reduced lunch(29.5%)
Reading Writing Math
16 of 25
WASL Met-Standard Rates by WASL Met-Standard Rates by Primary Language SpokenPrimary Language Spoken
8882
53
65
8681
49
66
5763
17
37
0
20
40
60
80
100
English(91.4%)
Asian (1.9%)
Spanish(4.4%)
Other (2.3%)
Reading Writing Math
17 of 25
Relative Association Between WASL Met-Standard Relative Association Between WASL Met-Standard Rates and Students Grouped by CharacteristicsRates and Students Grouped by Characteristics
-9
-4
-9
-18
+23
+2
-6
-22
-31
Reading
+3Male
-9Hispanic American
-13African American
-16Poverty
+26
+5
-5
-8
-27
All Three
Asian
Parents’ Education
Native American
Non-English
Disabilities
+7
-9
-13
-16
+5
+26
-5
-7
-27
Math
-25
-3
-7
-17
+6
+21
-5
-21
-29
Writing
18 of 25
Factors Affecting WASL PerformanceFactors Affecting WASL Performance
Student Characteristics
ClassroomInstruction
CurriculumAlignment
Student Performance
on WASL
ExtraAssistance
School Environment
UnknownFactors
19 of 25
Participation in Summer 2006 PAS Participation in Summer 2006 PAS by Level of WASL Performanceby Level of WASL Performance
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Reading Writing Math
Eligible (did not meet standard)
Level 2 PAS participants
Level 1 PAS participants
32,144
11,44710,137
20 of 25
Summer 2006 PAS: ReadingSummer 2006 PAS: Reading
Did not meet standard in spring 2006
(10,137)
Summer 2006 PAS
(897)
Retake August 2006
(532)
Met Std. August 2006
(221)
Met Std. August 2006
(586)
Retake August 2006
(1,333)
No summer 2006 PAS
(9,240)
8.8% of eligible
students
91.2% of eligible
students
59.3% of PAS
participants
41.5% of WASL
retakes
14.4% of non-
participants
44.0% of WASL
retakes
21 of 25
Summer 2006 PAS: WritingSummer 2006 PAS: Writing
Did not meet standard in spring 2006
(11,447)
Summer 2006 PAS
(1,035)
Retake August 2006
(602)
Met Std. August 2006
(394)
Met Std. August 2006
(1,032)
Retake August 2006
(1,655)
No summer 2006 PAS
(10,412)
9.0% of eligible
students
91.0% of eligible
students
58.2% of PAS
participants
65.4% of WASL
retakes
15.9% of non-
participants
62.4% of WASL
retakes
22 of 25
Summer 2006 PAS: MathSummer 2006 PAS: Math
Did not meet standard in spring 2006
(32,144)
Summer 2006 PAS
(4,218)
Retake August 2006
(2,986)
Met Std. August 2006
(843)
Met Std. August 2006
(1,412)
Retake August 2006
(5,817)
No summer 2006 PAS
(27,926)
13.1% of eligible
students
86.9% of eligible
students
70.8% of PAS
participants
28.2% of WASL
retakes
20.8% of non-
participants
24.3% of WASL
retakes
23 of 25
Percentage Who Met Standard on the Percentage Who Met Standard on the August 2006 WASL RetakeAugust 2006 WASL Retake
* Met-standard rates for non-participants adjusted using logistic regression
42%
65%
28%
42%
59%
22%
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading (n.s.)
Writing (p<.01)
Math (p<.01)
PAS participants
Non-participants *
24 of 25
Percentage of Students By Level Who Met Percentage of Students By Level Who Met Standard on the August 2006 WASL RetakeStandard on the August 2006 WASL Retake
1724
4
45
72
39
15
31
3
47
64
31
0
20
40
60
80
100
Reading Writing Math
Level 1
Level 2
PAS Not-PAS PAS PASNot-PAS Not-PAS
24
72
15
47
25 of 25
Summary:Summary:Summer 2006 Promoting Academic SuccessSummer 2006 Promoting Academic Success
• Few students who were eligible for PAS in summer 2006 participated (approximately 1 in 10).
• Writing and Math: PAS participants outperformed non-participants by 6 percentage points on the August retake.
• Reading: PAS participants have same performance as non-participants on the August retake.
Recommended