Student Growth Data

Steaban 2013

Goal: During the 2012-2013 school year, all students will improve their math writing skills by one level as
measured by an increase in score level on writing prompts based on the MEAP Analytic Rubric for
Informational writing.

Upon reexamination of this goal several times throughout the course of the year, it has come to my attention
that the goal and achievement factors do not correspond exactly. The goal states that all students will improve
their math writing skills by one level as measured by an increase in score level on writing prompts based on
the MEAP Analytic Rubric for Informational writing, while the achievement indicators defined for this goal speak
to a percent increase in the number of students scoring at or above on writing prompts based on the MEAP
Analytic Rubric for Informational writing. While this was an error on my part when writing the indicators last fall,
after analysis of my students writing data, I am prepared to make a case for both interpretations.

Let me first attend to the achievement indicators that address the percent increase in the number of students
scoring at or above on writing prompts based on the MEAP Analytic Rubric for Informational writing. After the
initial writing prompt last fall, 15 students scored at or above grade level. In order to achieve highly effective
status, a 100% improvement
must be made to this number
which means it must at least
double. After the most recent
prompt in March, 82 students
scored at or above grade level,
clearly meeting the goal. In fact,
after doing the calculations,
there was a 447% increase in
the number of students scoring
at or above grade level. While
not included in the achievement
indicators, I feel it is important to
note that the number of students
below or approaching grade
level was cut by about one third.

While I am proud that I was able
to show the growth previously
mentioned, I feel that the initial
goal written is more impactful on student learning than meeting the achievement factors. Because the goal is
written in that all students will improve their math writing skills by one level as measured by an increase in
score level on writing prompts based on the MEAP Analytic Rubric for Informational writing, it holds me more
accountable to each student rather than an average
number or list of numbers with no attachment to
numbers. Let it also be noted that this is the way it is
phrased in our PGP.

I began my analysis by looking at the overall
percentages of students with each number of level
changes. As the graph below illustrates, all but 13%
of students gained at least one level from September
to March. A small percentage (3%) gained 3 levels.
My goal of all students growing by one level was not
met, however, and my initial reaction was that it may
be due to having special education and ESL students
on our team. Upon further analysis, though, I no
longer think this is the case.
43
7
53
21
14
62
1
20
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
September March
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

Prompt Date
Student Writing Scores
Below
Approaching
At
Above
13%
61%
23%
3%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - All Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
2
12%
11
65%
3
17%
1
6%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - Special Education
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
17%
5
83%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - ESL
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
10%
9
90%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - Latino Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
25%
3
75%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - African American Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels
1
50%
1
50%
Writing Across the Curriculum
Change in Level - Asian American Students
+0 Levels
+1 Level
+2 Levels
+3 Levels


Below are the graphs from the sub group analyses based on my students writing scores. Note that the
number above each percent is the actual number of students for that sector of the graph. According to these
graphs only three students from the ESL and special education population combined did not show growth over
the course of the year. If we include all the subgroups the total changes to five. So where did the rest of the
13% come from?


Data can be deceiving. The 13% is comprised of 13
students. The five students who came from the
subgroup analysis were really only threeone student
is ESL, Special Education and Asian American. Five of
the other students were advanced math students who
started and ended the year at grade level signaling to
me that I need to work on pushing some of my learners
to stretch their writing capabilities in math. Five other
general math students remained stagnanttwo of
which had excessive absences and one joined us from
another school mid-February.
0 0 3 0
58
50
42
79
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%

Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks (All Students)
Pre Task
Post Task








My next steps are to continue to incorporate writing as a daily activity in my math classroom. In addition, I
would like to meet with my language arts teammate to discuss how I might push some of my advanced writers
further.
Goal: During the 2012-2013 school year, all students will improve their ability to solve applied problems by
15% as measured by an increase in the percentage of students scoring 80% or better on unit performance
tasks.

According to the achievement factors defined when this goal was set; a highly effective rating requires a 20%
increase in the number of students scoring 80% or better on unit performance tasks. This is 5% higher than
the initial goal. Let us begin by
looking at the data for the assessment
tasks for Units 1-4 for all students. As
can be seen from the graph, from
each pre task to post task, there at
least a 20% increase in students
scoring 80% or above for each unit.
After further breaking down the data
and doing the subgroup analyses,
some other points have come to
mind. First, the same goal was met
for the special education subgroup.
The assessment tasks are allowing
this group to demonstrate their
learning and thinking in various ways
besides the typical testing
environments and it is proving to be
very useful in helping to assess their
learning. Second, the data for the
ESL subgroup is only comprised of
general math students since there are
no ESL kids in advanced math, hence
no Unit 4 Post Task data. The same
goes for African American and Asian
Students Not Showing Growth
Sub Group(s) Score 9/12 Score 3/13
Blomquist, Andrew
Advanced Math 3 3
Boynton, Annie
2 2
Cempura, Anne
2 2
Cook, David
Advanced Math 3 3
Cooper, Riley
Latino 2 2
Finch, Keegan
Advanced Math 3 3
Grey, Hunter
Advanced Math 3 3
Kew, Nick
Special Ed., Asian
American, ESL
1 1
Kissick, Austin
Special Ed. 1 1
Oliva, Zach
1 1
Ritchie, Savannah
Advanced Math 3 3
Wilhelm, Max
2 2
Wolford, Austin
1 1
0 0 0 0
53
38
23
50
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%


Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(Special Education)
Pre Task
Post Task
American Students. However, with
the latter two subgroups, it should
also be noted that no students scored
above 80% on the Unit 3 Post Task
either.
Overall, this goal was met. My next
steps include continuing the same
steps as I implemented this year. I
strongly feel that as students get
more used to seeing tasks and get
more used to finding entry points and
multiple solutions their scores will
continue to improve.




















0 0 0 0
43
29
14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%


Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks (ESL)
Pre Task
Post Task
0 0 0 0
75
50
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%

Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(African American Students)
Pre Task
Post Task
0 0 0 0
50
100
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%

Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(Asian American Students)
Pre Task
Post Task



























0 0 1 0
40
0
10
30
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4
P
e
r
c
e
n
t

o
f

S
t
u
d
e
n
t
s

S
c
o
r
i
n
g

8
0
%

Student Growth: Unit Assessment Tasks
(Latino Students)
Pre Task
Post Task