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

Disaggregation by Bureau and non-Bureau schools shows a clear pattern. Bureau schools started at performance levelsthat are similar to non-Bureau schools in fall 2009. Spring results indicate that Bureau schools showed significantlygreater growth than non-Bureau schools (when compared to both the norms and their respective Virtual ComparisonGroups) and the positive differences in growth led to differences in performance that favored students attending theBureau schools. This was true in both Mathematics and Reading.Difference for ADD, ELO, and StateBecause there were a large number of ADDs, ELOs, and states, analyses for these groupings have been limited to theVCG Growth Index and the Norm Growth Index for all grades combined. For each grouping, the results have been listedin order from highest to lowest Fall to Spring norm-indexed growth. Note that the order from highest to lowest may bedifferent for VCG difference. The total for all students is listed and highlighted in blue to show states, ADDs, and ELOswhich have better growth scores above the dark total line.Table 19: Math Norm Growth Index and VCG Growth Index for ELOsELOCount forVCG GrowthMath average across all gradesCount forNormGrowthVCG GrowthIndexNormGrowthIndexStanding Rock ELO 104 84 3.87 4.21New Mexico Navajo North ELO 949 702 2.90 1.62New Mexico North ELO 402 402 1.24 -1.66Minneapolis ELO 1015 905 -0.18 -2.02Turtle Mountain ELO 1116 1066 -0.42 -2.17Seattle ELO 281 243 0.67 -2.19New Mexico Navajo Central ELO 1098 894 -0.50 -2.20New Mexico South ELO 231 231 1.67 -2.23Arizona Navajo North ELO 565 542 -0.28 -2.43Total 9093 7973 -0.24 -2.44Sacramento ELO 50 50 0.24 -2.86Southern & Eastern States ELO 126 126 -1.21 -2.98Arizona Navajo Central ELO 1007 841 -1.49 -4.04New Mexico Navajo South ELO 1511 1354 -1.17 -4.04Arizona Navajo South ELO 123 105 -0.59 -4.36Arizona South ELO 292 248 -3.86 -4.53Billings ELO 164 140 -1.84 -4.60Oklahoma ELO 59 40 -2.76 -5.1027 | P a g e