Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
2012 Colorado Student Assessment Results. Jo O’Brien Joyce Zurkowski Unit of Assessment and Research & Evaluation. Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) Background. TCAP supports the transition from the Colorado Model Content Standards to the Colorado Academic Standards - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
2012 Colorado Student Assessment Results
Jo O’BrienJoyce Zurkowski
Unit of Assessment and Research & Evaluation
Transitional Colorado Assessment Program (TCAP) Background
• TCAP supports the transition from the Colorado Model Content Standards to the Colorado Academic Standards
• TCAP was administered for the first time in 2012– CSAP was administered for the past 15 years
• TCAP assesses:– 3rd – 10th grade reading, writing and math– 5th, 8th, and 10th grade science
• 1,654,765 tests were administered to about 490,500 Colorado students in 2012.
The State of Reading• 2012 Reading across
all grades showed an increase in Proficient and Advanced of 1.4% from 2011– Reading proficiency
increased in all grades between 2011 and 2012
• Grades 3, 4, 6 and 7 demonstrate upward trends in reading proficiency
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
CSAP/TCAP Reading Percent Proficient and Advanced 2005-2012
20052006200720082009201020112012
Grade
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
The State of Writing
• 2012 Writing across all grades showed a decrease in Proficient and Advanced of 1.3% from 2011– Writing proficiency increased
in grades 3, 7, 8 and 10 from 2011 to 2012
• Grades 5, 7 and 8 have higher proficiency levels than 2005 levels.
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
CSAP/TCAP Writing Percent Proficient and Advanced 2005-2012
20052006200720082009201020112012
Grade
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
The State of Mathematics
• 2012 Mathematics across all grades showed a change in Proficient and Advanced of 0.1% from 2011– Mathematics proficiency
increased in grades 3, 4, 7, 8 and 10 from 2011 to 2012
• All grade levels have higher proficiency levels than 2005 levels
3 4 5 6 7 8 9 100.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
CSAP/TCAP Mathematics Percent Proficient and Ad-
vanced 2005-2012
20052006200720082009201020112012
Grade
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
The State of Science• 2012 Science scores across
all grades showed an increase in Proficient and Advanced of 1.1% from 2011– Science proficiency
improved in grades 5 and 10, between 2011 and 2012
• All grades show improvement in proficiency compared to the 2008 scores
5 8 100.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
CSAP/TCAP Science Percent Proficient and Advanced 2008-2012
20082009201020112012
Grade
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
& A
dvan
ced
TCAP 2012Student Achievement: Race/Ethnicity
• Hispanic students:– Minimal proficiency gains in Reading, Writing and Mathematics across
all grades since 2005 – Minimal proficiency gains in Science across all grades since 2008– Percent Proficient or Advanced lower than White students by more
than 27% for all content areas in 2012
• Black students: – Minimal proficiency gains in all but 5th grade in Reading since 2005– Minimal proficiency gains in all but 3rd and 5th grade Mathematics since
2005– Minimal proficiency gains in Writing in grades 7, 8 and 9 since 2005 – Minimal proficiency gains in Science across all grades since 2008 – Percent Proficient or Advanced lower than White students by more
than 27% for all content areas in 2012
CSAP/ TCAP Reading State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend for White, Hispanic and Black Students
CSAP 2005 CSAP 2006 CSAP 2007 CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
77.7 78.7 78.6 78.6 79.2 78.7 78.9 80.2
41.8 44.7 44.3 46.3 47.4 49.0 49.8 51.647.4 50.3 49.3 51.1 52.1 53.5
48.6 51.6
White Hispanic Black
Perc
ent o
f Pr
oficie
nt o
r Adv
ance
d St
uden
ts
Gap SizeCSAP 2005
CSAP 2006
CSAP 2007
CSAP 2008
CSAP 2009
CSAP 2010
CSAP 2011
TCAP 2012
White/Hispanic 35.9 34.0 34.3 32.3 31.8 29.7 29.1 28.6
White/Black 30.3 28.4 29.3 27.5 27.1 25.2 30.3 28.6
CSAP/ TCAP Writing State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend for White, Hispanic and Black Students
Gap SizeCSAP 2005
CSAP 2006
CSAP 2007
CSAP 2008
CSAP 2009
CSAP 2010
CSAP 2011
TCAP 2012
White/Hispanic 33.7 34.0 33.2 32.8 31.3 30.8 29.5 27.9
White/Black 28.4 29.0 28.8 28.0 27.4 26.0 29.3 27.8
CSAP 2005 CSAP 2006 CSAP 2007 CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
64.9 64.8 64.9 64.4 65.4 63.566.3 64.5
31.2 30.8 31.7 31.6 34.1 32.736.8 36.6
36.5 35.8 36.1 36.4 38.0 37.5 37.0 36.7
White Hispanic Black
Perc
ent o
f Pr
oficie
nt o
r Adv
ance
d St
uden
ts
CSAP/ TCAP Mathematics State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend for White, Hispanic and Black Students
Gap SizeCSAP 2005
CSAP 2006
CSAP 2007
CSAP 2008
CSAP 2009
CSAP 2010
CSAP 2011
TCAP 2012
White/Hispanic 30.5 30.1 29.8 29.2 28.4 27.7 26.5 27.2
White/Black 31.8 31.5 31.2 30.8 29.8 28.5 32.5 32.6
CSAP 2005 CSAP 2006 CSAP 2007 CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
60.6 62.4 63.1 63.2 64.3 64.5 65.8 66.2
30.1 32.3 33.3 34.0 35.9 36.8 39.3 39.0
28.8 30.9 31.9 32.4 34.5 36.033.3 33.6
White Hispanic Black
Perc
ent o
f Pr
oficie
nt o
r Adv
ance
d St
uden
ts
CSAP/ TCAP Science State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend for White, Hispanic and Black Students
Gap Size CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 2012
White/Hispanic 38.3 37.6 36.6 35.4 34.7
White/Black 35.3 35.6 34.4 37.2 36.7
CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
58.5 60.6 60.0 61.0 61.9
20.223.0 23.4 25.6 27.2
23.2 25.0 25.6 23.8 25.2
White Hispanic BlackPerc
ent o
f Pr
oficie
nt o
r Adv
ance
d St
uden
ts
TCAP 2012Student Achievement: FRL and Title 1
Free and Reduced Lunch• Minimal proficiency gains across all grades for Reading, Mathematics and
Writing since 2005• Minimal proficiency gains in Science across all grades since 2008 • 2012 Percentage of Proficient or Advanced FRL students is lower than non-
eligible students across all grades and content areas by at least 26.1%
Title 1 students• Minimal proficiency gains across all grades for Reading and Mathematics
since 2005• Minimal proficiency gains across grades 5-10 for Writing since 2005 • Minimal proficiency gains across all grades in Science since 2008
CSAP/ TCAP Reading State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend by Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility
CSAP 2005
CSAP 2006
CSAP 2007
CSAP 2008
CSAP 2009
CSAP 2010
CSAP 2011
TCAP 2012
Gap Size 33.1 32.1 32.2 30.9 31.1 28.8 30.2 29.2
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
43.946.4 46.0 47.6 48.6
50.8 49.952.2
77.0 78.5 78.2 78.5 79.7 79.6 80.1 81.4
Eligible Not Eligible
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Stud
ents
CSAP/ TCAP Writing State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend by Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility
CSAP 2005
CSAP 2006
CSAP 2007
CSAP 2008
CSAP 2009
CSAP 2010
CSAP 2011
TCAP 2012
Gap Size 32.6 33.2 32.6 32.4 32.2 31.3 31.9 31.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
32.2 31.8 32.4 32.3 34.4 33.836.3 35.9
64.8 65.0 65.0 64.7 66.6 65.168.2 66.9
Eligible Not Eligible
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Stud
ents
CSAP/ TCAP Mathematics State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend by Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility
CSAP 2005
CSAP 2006
CSAP 2007
CSAP 2008
CSAP 2009
CSAP 2010
CSAP 2011
TCAP 2012
Gap Size 27.5 27.7 27.4 27.3 27.3 26.5 27.3 28.0
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
32.1 34.1 35.1 35.5 37.3 38.7 39.5 39.5
59.6 61.8 62.5 62.8 64.6 65.2 66.8 67.5
Eligible Not Eligible
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Stud
ents
CSAP/ TCAP Science State Level Percent Proficient and Advanced Trend by Free and Reduced Lunch Eligibility
CSAP 2008 CSAP 2009 CSAP 2010 CSAP 2011 TCAP 2012
Gap Size 35.1 35.6 34.0 34.8 34.6
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
22.224.6 25.9 26.5 28.2
57.360.2 59.9 61.3 62.8
Eligible Not Eligible
Perc
ent P
rofic
ient
or A
dvan
ced
Stud
ents
TCAP 2012Student Achievement: Gender
Proficiency Gains since 2005(2008 for Science)
Males Females
Reading All grades All grades
Writing Grades 5, 7, 8 and 9 Grades 5, 7 and 8
Mathematics All grades All grades
Science Grades 5 and 8 Grades 5, 8 and 10
TCAP 2012Student Achievement: Gender
• More females than males were Proficient or Advanced in Reading and Writing at all grade levels
• More males than females were Proficient or Advanced in Mathematics grades 3, 4, 6, 9 and 10 and in Science grades 5 and 10
TCAP 2012Percentage of Students Scoring
Proficient/AdvancedStatistically Significant Increases
Number of Districts District Names(Up to top 5)
Reading 30 Granada RE-1Haxtun RE-2JNorth Conejos RE-1JSalida R-32Sheridan 2
Writing 4 Salida R-32Denver County 1Westminster 50Adams-Arapahoe 28J
TCAP 2012Percentage of Students Scoring
Proficient/AdvancedStatistically Significant Increases
Number of Districts District Names(Up to top 5)
Math 7 Salida R-32Cheyenne Mountain 12Brighton 27JWestminster 50Harrison 2
Science 13 Prairie RE-11Keenesburg RE-3(J)East Grand 2Trinidad 2Cheyenne Mountain 12
TCAP 2012Turnaround and Priority Improvement Districts
Statistically Significant Increases in Percent Proficient/Advanced
Reading Writing Mathematics ScienceAdams-Arapahoe 28J 1.7 1.2 - 3.3Canon City RE-1 3.5 - - -Denver County 1 2.8 2.1 1.4 3.7Mapleton 1 3.4 - - -Pueblo City 60 3.8 - - -Sheridan 2 5.8 - - -Westminster 50 4.0 2.0 2.3 4.7
Additional 2012 Colorado Assessments
• Lectura and Escritura (Spanish reading and writing assessments)– 3rd and 4th grade proficiency scores declined on both tests
• Colorado Alternate Assessment (CoAlt) for students with significant cognitive disabilities– Developing and Novice proficiency levels increased in:
• Reading: Grades 7, 8, 9 and 10• Writing: Grades 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10• Mathematics: Grades 6, 8, 9, and 10• Science: Grades 8 and 10
• Colorado ACT scores remained relatively unchanged – The average Composite score increased from 19.9 to 20.0
2012 Colorado Growth Model Results
Bill BonkAlyssa Pearson
Unit of Accountability and Data Analysis
Growth
• How much are students growing?
• Is it enough?
Catch up and Keep up
N o t P ro fi c i e n t
P ro fi c i e n t
Percentage of Students Catching Up in Math
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ElemMiddleHigh
Percentage of Students Keeping Up in Math
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ElemMiddleHigh
Percentage of Students Catching Up in Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
ElemMiddleHigh
Percentage of Students Keeping Up in Reading
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
ElemMiddleHigh
Gaps in Students Catching Up: Economically Disadvantaged
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Non FRLFRL
Reading
Math
English Language Proficiency Growth
• English Language Proficiency Growth– Calculated for districts in 2010-11– Using for accountability with 2011-12 results– Aligned ESEA Title III Accountability
• English language proficiency assessment– Speaking, listening, reading and writing– Levels 1 (beginning) to 5 (fluent)
CELApro Adequate Growth Percentile Targets
Current Proficiency Level
Desired Proficiency Level
Time Allotted
1 2 1 year
2 3 1 year
3 4 2 years
4 5 2 years
Percentage of Students Making Growth Adequate to Get to the Next Level in English Proficiency
2008 2009 2010 2011 20120
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1 to 22 to 33 to 44 to 5
Colorado Growth Model on the Web
States Using Colorado Growth Model
