BIE 2009-2010 Baseline Data Report Kingsbury-NWEA - Bureau of ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Table 12: Difference between BIE Project students and their VCG groupVCG students have the same starting score, poverty level, and geographyMathReadingBIE RawGrowthVCG RawGrowthRawGrowthDifferenceBIE RawGrowthVCG RawGrowthRawGrowthDifferenceK 15.7 15.8 -0.1 K 13.3 15.2 -1.913.6 15.211.8 14.11-1.6 1-2.32 10.8 11.4 -0.5 2 11.1 12.4 -1.33 9.2 11.0 -1.7 3 6.6 9.7 -3.14 8.3 8.9 -0.7 4 6.5 8.0 -1.55 7.6 8.1 -0.5 5 4.8 6.9 -2.16 6.3 6.9 -0.6 6 3.7 5.7 -2.07 5.0 4.5 0.5 7 3.9 4.1 -0.28 5.5 4.4 1.1 8 4.3 4.3 0.0highlighting shows statistical significanceDIFFERENCE FOR TYPES OF SCHOOLSDifference for Professional DevelopmentA number of the schools in the BIE have utilized the services of the NWEA professional development team to teach,train, and coach teachers and school leaders in using MAP data to make informed decisions for students. The NWEAprofessional development services received ranged in nature: some schools may have had several full days of wholeschoolworkshops or work with school leadership teams, while other schools may have been engaged on a more limitedbasis. Although there is a large degree of difference in the professional development services received, we wanted toexplore whether this service in aggregate showed an effect.The following tables show the calculated difference between students from schools that had any ProfessionalDevelopment time with NWEA (PD) and schools that didn’t (No PD). In addition, tests were run to see if there was anystatistically significant difference between the two groups. Areas where students from PD schools scored statisticallysignificantly (p < .05) higher on any metric are highlighted in green. Areas where students from PD schools scoredstatistically significantly lower than students from schools without NWEA PD are highlighted in pink. Fall RIT score,Spring RIT, Norm Index Score, and VCG Index Score are all shown. The VCG Growth Index Score for the PD group iscomprised of a comparison group of students matched to students in schools with PD; students in their VCG group mayor may not have received professional development services. The comparison being made is between students inschools which had PD services compared to the overall comparison group for those students. Likewise, the VCG GrowthIndex for the No PD group reflects national NWEA students who may or may not have received PD.22 | P a g e
Table 13: Math Fall, Spring, Norm Growth Index, and VCG Growth Index for Professional Development groupsMathCountFall09 RITSpring10 RITNorm GrowthIndexVCG GrowthIndexPD No PD PD No PD PD No PD PD No PD PD No PDK 373 115 132.8 130.4 146.7 144.6 -0.51 -2.931 442 156 154.7 149.4 166.2 164.6 -1.13 -0.912 489 506 171.2 172.2 182.8 183.4 -3.12 -3.21 0.14 -0.663 453 541 180.7 184.1 191.5 194.5 -1.17 -0.80 -0.88 -0.834 505 503 190.6 194.0 200.1 202.1 -2.52 -3.15 0.39 -0.575 440 497 198.5 201.7 207.0 207.7 -1.83 -4.28 0.45 -2.196 441 493 204.5 208.3 211.2 214.4 -2.59 -2.79 -0.69 -1.237 364 517 209.0 213.6 214.1 218.5 -2.16 -2.77 0.60 -0.808 306 563 215.5 217.9 221.3 223.3 -0.89 -1.01 1.70 1.179 112 538 225.0 220.7 228.0 224.1 -2.81 -2.72 1.06 0.6710 110 431 226.2 225.0 229.2 226.8 -1.72 -3.39 1.45 -0.2311 95 363 225.1 227.7 229.4 229.1 -0.69 -3.37 2.72 -0.2112 87 111 231.9 230.4 233.1 232.7 -0.07 0.74Total 4217 5334 -2.09 -2.68 0.10 -0.52Table 14: Reading Fall, Spring, Norm Growth Index, VCG Growth Index for Professional Development groupsReadingN Fall09 RIT Spring10 RITNorm GrowthIndexVCG GrowthIndexPD No PD PD No PD PD No PD PD No PD PD No PDK 386 125 134.3 130.7 142.6 146.4 -1.65 -2.151 455 170 152.3 147.1 165.0 159.6 -2.04 -3.542 488 512 165.5 168.4 177.2 179.9 -5.08 -4.6 -1.11 -1.563 460 530 175.3 180.2 183.1 188.3 -4.60 -3.1 -2.33 -0.964 501 491 185.0 189.1 192.0 195.7 -2.28 -1.9 -0.78 -0.525 444 467 190.5 196.3 196.1 201.6 -1.83 -1.2 -1.09 -0.376 437 486 195.8 201.0 200.1 205.5 -2.65 -1.5 -1.65 -0.417 383 524 199.8 205.8 203.8 209.6 -2.65 -1.8 -0.04 0.538 302 551 203.2 208.9 207.5 212.0 -1.74 -1.9 0.03 -0.059 128 547 212.5 211.1 215.7 213.6 -0.16 -0.5 1.67 1.1710 129 465 214.9 214.9 216.7 216.3 -1.81 -1.1 0.73 1.3111 104 381 213.9 216.2 215.9 216.6 -1.15 -2.3 1.44 0.4612 87 106 218.1 217.4 217.9 217.4 0.07 0.39Total 4304 5355 -2.87 -1.98 -1.01 -0.1823 | P a g e
Page 5 and 6: INTRODUCTIONTHE PURPOSE OF THIS REP
Page 7 and 8: Federal Adequate Yearly Progress (A
Page 9 and 10: Table 2: Counts of BIE students in
Page 11 and 12: Virtual Comparison GroupAnother way
Page 13 and 14: READINGTable 4: Fall Reading RIT sc
Page 15 and 16: Fall to Spring Raw GrowthTable 5: S
Page 17 and 18: Fall to Spring Norm-Indexed Growth
Page 19 and 20: Reading where Project students scor
Page 21: Table 11: Difference between BIE st
Page 25 and 26: Table 16: Reading Fall, Spring, Nor
Page 27 and 28: Disaggregation by Bureau and non-Bu
Page 29 and 30: Table 23: Math Norm Growth Index an
Page 31 and 32: DISCUSSIONMEASURING PERFORMANCE FOR
Page 33 and 34: RECOMMENDATIONSAfter analyzing the
Page 35 and 36: APPENDICESAppendix A: Counts of stu
Page 37 and 38: MATHELO K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 1
Page 39 and 40: READINGSchool Type K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Page 41 and 42: NCorrelationSig.StudentMeanVCGMeanP
Page 43 and 44: APPENDIX D: NWEA-BIE Partnership Ba

BIE 2009-2010 Baseline Data Report Kingsbury-NWEA - Bureau of ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?