New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Summary of October 2011 Results Developed for the Providence School Board February 27, 2012 Presented by:

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP)

Summary of October 2011 Results

Developed for the Providence School Board February 27, 2012

Presented by: Marco Andrade

Office of Research, Planning and Accountability

NECAP BACKGROUND

• Criterion referenced test of reading and math for gr.3-8, 11writing for gr.5, 8, 11

• Provides info about student performance for previous year (grade level) and school performance

• Alignment to GLEs/GSEs - use of data to support school improvement

2Source: Measured Progress (June 2009). New England Common Assessment Program 2008–2009 Technical Report.


NECAP Overview

Understanding the NECAP

NECAP BACKGROUND

• Info used in RI’s accountability system to meet requirements of NCLB

• Testing year: reflects students who took the test in Oct 2011 by school building

• Teaching year: reflects students who received instruction the prior year (2010-2011) by school building

3Source: Measured Progress (June 2009). New England Common Assessment Program 2008–2009 Technical Report.


NECAP Overview

Understanding the NECAP

DISTRICT RESULTS

• The percentage of students scoring proficient remained essentially consistent (due to rounding) from 48% in 2009 to 48% in 2011.

• When looking at overall performance over the past five to six years, we have made significant gains in reading.

• The district has not kept pace with gains made state-wide. The percentage gap in proficient or higher widened in 2011.

4


Performance Levels

Key Findingsin Reading

37%29% 28%

23% 23% 22% 24%16% 14% 14% 11% 10% 10% 10%

34%

34%32%

30% 30% 31% 28%

25%24% 22%

20% 19% 19% 17%

27%

34%35%

40% 41% 40% 40%

47% 50%50%

52% 52% 51%50%

3% 3% 5% 6% 7% 7% 8%12% 12% 14%

16% 18% 20% 23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

11480 11066 11818 11247 11345 11328 11621 70010 68346 76848 74254 73787 73401 73282

District State

Substantially Below Proficient Partially Proficient Proficient Proficient with Distinction

NECAP Reading Aggregate Results Reported by Performance Levels for District & State

DISTRICT RESULTS

• After reaching the minimum level for proficiency of 40 in 2010, the mean scaled score decreased to 39 in 2011. This is a statistically significant decrease.

• The mean scaled score had increased each year by at least one point from 33 in 2005 to 40 in 2010 before decreasing by one point in 2011.

• The performance gap between the district and state widened in 2011.

6


Mean Scaled Scores

Key Findingsin Reading

NECAP Reading Aggregate Results Reported by Scaled Scores for District & State

33

42

36

43

37

44

38

45

39

46

40

47

39

47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

District State

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

N 11480 11066 11818 11247 11345 11328 11621 N 70010 68346 76848 74254 73787 73401 73282

DISTRICT RESULTS

• The majority of district students who took NECAP writing were below proficient (68%).


• Note that 2009 was a pilot year for Grades 5 and 8 and only reflects the performance of Grade 11 students.

8


Performance Levels

Key Findingsin Writing

NECAP Writing Aggregate Results Reported by Performance Levels for District & State

36%42%

29%25%

11%16%

24%17%

22%17% 14%

5% 7% 10%

35%

34%

43%43%

46%

45%

44%

32%

31% 39%37%

40% 36%36%

26%20%

24%26%

38%35%

30%

43% 35%34%

36% 48%47%

46%

3% 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 3%9%

12% 9% 13%7% 10% 9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

3681 3617 5090 4875 1557 4568 4901 23490 22840 33682 32969 10679 31336 32036

District State


DISTRICT RESULTS

• The writing mean scaled score decreased from 37 in 2010 to 33 in 2011. This is a statistically significant decrease.

• There is a 3-year negative trend in the district-level writing mean scale score for 2008, 2010 and 2011 (years with data available).


10


Mean Scaled Scores


NECAP Writing Grades 5 & 8 Results Reported by Scaled Scores for District & State

31

39

31

40

33

3938 40

37

43

33

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

District State

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

N 3681 3617 3540 3368 Pilot 3114 3408 N 23490 22840 22551 22032 Pilot 20472 21528

DISTRICT RESULTS• Scoring rubric mean scores range from 0

to 12. A scoring rubric mean score of 6 is the demarcation for minimum proficiency.

• The writing test in 2009 was based on procedural writing while the 2010 test was based on reflective essay writing. In 2011 the grade 5 test was based on report writing, grade 8 on response to informational text, and grade 11 test on persuasive writing.

• The rubric mean score among grade 11 students decreased from 6.1 in 2009 to 5.6 in 2011. This is a negative 3-year trend.

12


Rubric Mean Score


NECAP Writing Grade 11 Results Reported by Scoring Rubric Mean Score for District & State

5.2

5.7

5.4

6.16.1

6.7

5.7

6.4

5.6

6.4

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

District State

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

N 1547 1507 1557 1454 1493 N 11131 10669 10679 10594 10508

DISTRICT RESULTS

• The percentage of students scoring proficient increased from 28% in 2009 to 32% in 2011. This is a positive 3-year trend.

• The percentage of students scoring substantially below proficient remained at 46% from 2010 to 2011.

• There is a large performance gap between the district and state.

14


Performance Levels

Key Findingsin Math

NECAP Math Aggregate Results Reported by Performance Levels for District & State

52%

43%48% 46% 49% 46% 46%

28% 25% 28% 26% 26% 24% 24%

25%

25%

26%24%

23%23% 21%

23%22%

23%21% 21% 21% 19%

21%

27%23%

26% 24%26% 27%

39%41%

38%39% 39% 39%

39%

3%4% 3% 4% 4% 5% 5% 11% 13% 11%

13% 15% 16% 17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

11698 11268 12016 11397 11537 11559 11804 70788 68563 77383 74567 74131 73834 73670

District State


DISTRICT RESULTS

• The mean scaled score remained at 34 from 2010 to 2011 breaking a pattern of one to two point annual swings in the scaled score.

• There is no trend in math scaled score.

• The performance gap between the district and state has remained the same since 2010.

16


Mean Scaled Scores

Key Findingsin Math

NECAP Math Aggregate Results Reported by Scaled Scores for District & State

32

39

34

39

32

40

34

43

33

41

34

41

34

41

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

District State

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

N 11698 11268 12016 11397 11537 11559 11804 N 70788 68563 77383 74567 74131 73834 73670

PERFORMANCE GAPSREADING GAPS. • The performance gap in reading widened

among all group comparisons from 2009-2011 with the exception of the free/reduced lunch group.

• There is a 3-year negative trend (widening gap) in the reading gap between Hispanic and Black students in comparison to White students.

• There continues to be a large performance gap of approximately 40 percentage points for groups such as students with IEP status and students with LEP status.

18


NECAP Performance

GapsKey Findingsin Reading

PERFORMANCE GAPSMATH GAPS. • The performance gap in math widened

among all group comparisons with the exception of the free/reduced lunch group.

• Despite Black students having a 3-year positive trend in math, the gap widened between Hispanic and Black students in comparison to White students.

• There continues to be a large performance gap for groups such as students with IEP status (30 percentage point gap) and students with LEP status (25 percentage point gap).

19


NECAP Performance

GapsKey Findings

in Math

Percentage Point Difference Between Student Proficiency in each Group (Teaching Year)

GROUPS READING 3-year

change MATH 3-year

change 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

Hispanic-White 14.1 15.5 18.5 4.4 points 13.3 10.7 14.8 1.5 points Black-White 12.9 13.5 15.3 2.4 points 15.5 15.2 17.4 1.9 points IEP - Non-IEP 41.9 42.6 42.3 0.4 points 26.6 26.7 29.8 3.2 points FRL - Non-FRL 11.6 11.6 10.8 -0.8 points 9.7 6.8 9.4 -0.3 points Current LEP - Non-LEP 38.9 36.7 39.9 1.0 points 22.0 20.8 25.5 3.5 points

GRADE-LEVEL RESULTS

READING - Annual Changes and Trends. • Grades 6, 7, and 8 each had an annual

increase in percent proficient.• Grades 7 and 8 also had an annual

increase in scaled score. • Grade 8 had a 3-year positive trend in

percent proficient and scaled score. • Grades 3, 4, and 5 each had an annual

decrease in percent proficient.• Grades 4 and 5 also had an annual

decrease in scaled score.

21


NECAP PerformanceKey Findingsin Reading

GRADE-LEVEL RESULTS

MATH - Annual Changes and Trends. • Grades 4, 6, 7, and 8 each had an annual

increase in percent proficient.• Grades 6, 7, 8, and 11 had an annual

increase in scaled score. • Grade 6 had a 3-year positive trend in both

percent proficient and scaled score.• Grades 3 and 5 had an annual decrease in

percent proficient.• Grade 3 also had an annual decrease in

scaled score.

22


NECAP PerformanceKey Findings

in Math

Grade Level

Reading Math

% Proficient Mean Scaled Score % Proficient Mean Scaled Score

2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011

3 47% 51% 50% 38 39 39 31% 37% 35% 34 36 35

4 44% 47% 46% 38 39 37 35% 41% 43% 35 36 36

5 52% 54% 40% 40 41 37 32% 39% 38% 34 35 35

6 44% 43% 48% 38 39 39 29% 34% 39% 33 34 35

7 42% 34% 46% 38 36 38 28% 24% 28% 33 32 33

8 44% 45% 52% 38 39 40 27% 26% 31% 33 33 34

11 60% 56% 56% 42 41 41 12% 12% 12% 28 28 29

DISTRICT 48% 47% 48%

28% 31% 32%

NECAP Performance by Grade Level, 2009-2011 (TESTING YEAR)

SCHOOL-LEVEL RESULTS

READING – ANNUAL CHANGES AND TRENDS

• The majority of elementary schools (n=12) showed a decrease in percent proficient in Reading over fall 2010.

• The majority of middle schools showed an increase in percent proficient in reading compared to 2010 (5 of 7 middle schools).

• Across all levels there were as many positive as negative trends in reading (six of each). Twenty-nine schools had no trend or insufficient data.

24


NECAP PerformanceKey Findingsin Reading


MATH - Annual Changes and Trends • Half of elementary schools (11 of 22) showed an

improvement in percent proficient in math over fall 2010.

• Eleven of the 22 elementary schools showed a positive 3-year trend in math. None showed a negative trend.

• Four of the seven middle schools had a positive annual change.

• Three of 12 high schools improved their percent proficient in math compared to 2010.

• Across all levels, there were 12 positive trends to four negative trends in math. Twenty-five schools had no trend or insufficient data.

25


NECAP PerformanceKey Findings

in Math

1-Year Changes and 3-Year Trends among Schools (Teaching Year)

Subject Level

1-Year Changes Trends

Positive Negative

No change or

insufficient data Positive Negative

No trend or insufficient

data

Reading Elementary 9 12 1 4 2 16 Middle 5 2 0 1 1 5 High 5 4 3 1 3 8

Math Elementary 11 9 2 11 0 11 Middle 4 3 0 0 2 5 High 3 7 2 1 2 9

Writing Elementary 3 18 1 N/A N/A 22 Middle 2 4 1 N/A N/A 7 High 4 7 1 1 5 6


• 9 of 22 (41%) Elementary schools have a majority of students proficient in Reading.

• 4 of 22 (18%) Elementary schools have a majority of students proficient in Math.

• 4 of 7 (57%) Middle schools have a majority of students proficient in Reading.

• 2 of 7 (29%) Middle schools have a majority of students proficient in Math.

• 5 of 12 (42%) High schools have a majority of students proficient in Reading.

• No district high school has a majority of students scoring proficient in Math.

27


Percent Proficient

Key Findings

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS• District-level Performance: As a school district, Providence

has remained relatively unchanged in its reading and math scores from the previous year. When looking at overall performance over the past five to six years, Providence Public Schools have made significant gains in reading.

• Grade-level Performance: The middle school grade levels demonstrated gains in reading and math. The mean scaled scores and percentage of students who are scoring proficient in reading and math increased from 2010 to 2011 for grades 6, 7, and 8. In fact, grade 8 has a 3-year positive trend in both the percentage of students scoring proficient and mean scaled score for reading.

28


SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS• School-level Performance: School level results were most

positive for Providence Middle Schools; the majority of which had an annual increase in percent proficient for reading (5 of 7 middle schools) and math (4 of 7 middle schools). Half of the elementary schools had a 3-year positive trend in math percent proficient.

• Achievement Gaps: Large achievement gaps persist particularly among students with IEPs and students of current Limited English Proficiency status. There are other significant achievement gaps in the disaggregated, grade level performance data including racial/ethnic disparities.

29


4-YEAR GRADUATION RATE

• After a 4-year positive trend, the 2011 4-year graduation rate declined to 66.1%.

• Dropout rate has remained consistent at 1 in 5 students since 2008.

2007 2008 2009 2010 20110.0%

25.0%

50.0%

75.0%

100.0%

59.5%63.0%

66.5% 68.0% 66.1%70.4%

73.9% 75.5% 75.8% 77.2%

30


Documents

New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) Summary of October 2011 Results Developed for the Providence School Board February 27, 2012 Presented by: