Upload
christopher-booth
View
220
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Using Data to Identify Student Needs for MME
Stan MastersCoordinator of Curriculum, Assessment,
and School ImprovementLenawee ISD
August 26, 2008
POP• Purpose
– Understand the potential in using student achievement data to identify student readiness for the Michigan Merit Exam
• Objectives– Analyze the Spring 2008 MME results, using
a case study– Develop steps for preparing for 2009 MME
and beyond
• Procedure– PowerPoint slides for presenting information
Spring 2007 MME ResultsAugust 15, 2007- LANSING –
More than 94 percent of Michigan 11th graders participating in the new Michigan Merit Exam (MME) this spring qualified to receive the $4,000 Michigan Promise Scholarship for their post-secondary education, the Michigan Department of Education reported today.
To qualify for the up-front installment payments of the Michigan Promise Scholarship, students are required to meet or exceed state standards in reading, writing, mathematics, and science. They will receive $1,000 during their freshman and sophomore years and earn the remaining $2,000 after successfully completing two years of post-secondary education.
Those students who did not meet or exceed Michigan standards in all four of those subjects as 11th graders have an opportunity to test again as seniors to qualify for early receipt of scholarship funds, or receive the $4,000 Promise Scholarship after successfully completing two years of a post-secondary education program.
What were the components of each MME test score?
• MME Reading – – ACT Reading and WorkKeys Reading
• MME Writing – – ACT English, ACT Writing, and Michigan Writing
• MME Math – – ACT Math, WorkKeys Math, ACT Science, and
Michigan Math
• MME Science – – ACT Science and Michigan Science
What about…
• MME English Language Arts?– Used for purposes of Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP)– A student’s total ELA scale score is the average of the
reading and writing scale scores.
• MME Social Studies– Entirely a Michigan test– Must be taken as part of MME, but scores are not
used to qualify for the Michigan Promise Scholarship– Not part of Michigan’s AYP formula
11th Graders Who Received Met or Exceeded Scores ("Proficient") on MME Reading, Writing, Math, and Science on Spring 2007 MME
27.91%
24.44%
27.27%
23.08%
29.51%
20.71%
16.47%
31.38%
26.17%
3.33%
23.33%
29.57%28.91%
28.57%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
Addiso
n
Adrian
Blissfi
eld
Britton
-Mac
on
Clinto
n
Deerfie
ld
Hudson
LISD
Mad
ison
Mor
enci
Onste
d
Sand
Creek
Tecum
seh
Total
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
What do we know about these “proficient” MME students?
• They took the MEAP tests in – Winter of 2003 (Reading and Writing)– Winter of 2004 (Math and Science)
• What evidence could indicate that these students would show success on the Spring 2007 MME?
Percentage of "All Proficient" Students on Spring 2007 MME Who Were Also "All Proficient" in Winter 2003 and Winter 2004 MEAP
(only valid scores returned to the same school)
60.32%61.29%
80.00%
87.50%
20.00%
36.84%
0.00%
68.75% 68.79%
93.33%84.62%
75.00%
53.85%
75.00%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Addis
on
Adria
n
Blissf
ield
Britto
n-M
acon
Clinto
n
Deerfi
eld
Hudso
nLIS
D
Mad
ison
Mor
enci
Ons
ted
Sand C
reek
Tecum
seh
Total
Schools
Pe
rce
nta
ge
Pro
fic
ien
t
MME 2008
• Some 12th grade re-testers in the Fall of 2008 – Free ACT on National Test Date in October– Opportunity to improve scores to receive Michigan
Promise Scholarship as incoming Freshmen– Does not impact AYP– MDE decides to end Fall Retake after 2008
• March 2008 – Spring MME with 11th graders– Same formats as Spring 2007
11th Graders Who Received Met or Exceeded Scores ("Proficient") on MME Reading, Writing, Math, and Science on Spring 2008 MME
34.48%
18.62%
30.77%
37.84%38.54%
12.12%
26.92%
3.45%
30.00%
26.32%
28.39%
17.33%
35.60%
27.58%
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Addiso
n
Adrian
Blissfi
eld
Britton
-Mac
on
Clinto
n
Deerfie
ld
Hudson
LISD
Mad
ison
Mor
enci
Onste
d
Sand
Creek
Tecum
seh
Total
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
Comparison of Spring 2007 and Spring 2008 MME 11th Graders Who Received Met or Exceeded Scores ("Proficient")
on MME Reading, Writing, Math, and Science
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Addiso
n
Adrian
Blissfi
eld
Britton
-Mac
on
Clinto
n
Deerfie
ld
Hudson
LISD
Mad
ison
Mor
enci
Onste
d
Sand
Creek
Tecum
seh
Total
Per
cen
t P
rofi
cien
t
Spring 2007 MME Testers Spring 2008 MME Testers
What do we know about these “proficient” MME students?
• They took the MEAP tests in – Winter of 2004 (Reading and Writing)– Winter of 2005 (Math and Science)
• What evidence could indicate that these students would show success on the Spring 2008 MME?
Percentage of "All Proficient" Students on Spring 2008 MME Who Were Also "All Proficient" in Winter 2004 and Winter 2005 MEAP
(only valid scores returned to the same school)
57.69%
65.91%
46.15%45.45%
68.97%
100.00%
43.48%
0.00%
70.83%70.59%
39.02%
53.85%
62.16%58.13%
0.00%
10.00%
20.00%
30.00%
40.00%
50.00%
60.00%
70.00%
80.00%
90.00%
100.00%
Addis
on
Adria
n
Blissf
ield
Britto
n-M
acon
Clinto
n
Deerfi
eld
Hudso
nLIS
D
Mad
ison
Mor
enci
Ons
ted
Sand C
reek
Tecum
seh
Total
Per
cen
tag
e P
rofi
cien
t
WE MUST UTILIZE AN
INQUIRY APPROACH
TO DATA ANALYSIS
WE MUST USE MULTIPLE
SOURCES OF DATA
We need a data warehouse
for our 21st century
schools
WE MUST FOCUS ON DATA TO INCREASE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT
Talking Points for the Purpose of Implementing
a Data Warehouse in Lenawee Schools
Potential Data Sources for Predicting Student Success on MME
• Previous MEAP
• Previous ACT
• PLAN
• EXPLORE
• NWEA
What else can we use to predict student success on MME?
• ACT Score– Benchmark Scores for College Readiness
• Reading Score of 21 » 97% Proficient on MME Reading
• Math Score of 22» 99% Proficient on MME Math
• Science Score of 24» 100% Proficient on MME Science
• English Score of 18 » 17% Proficient on MME Writing
Bauer, E. and Treder, D. (December 13, 2007). Banging on the MME. Presentation at Michigan Educational Research Association Inc., Frankenmuth, Michigan.
What else can we use to predict student success on MME?
• PLAN– Benchmark Scores for College Readiness
• Reading Score of 17 » 70% Proficient on MME Reading
• Math Score of 19» 87% Proficient on MME Math
• Science Score of 21» 95% Proficient on MME Science
• English Score of 15» 25% Proficient on MME Writing
Bauer, E. and Treder, D. (December 13, 2007). Banging on the MME. Presentation at Michigan Educational Research Association Inc., Frankenmuth, Michigan.
Changes in tests and components of 2009 MME
may change the predictability• MME Reading –
– Some ACT Reading and some WorkKeys Reading for Information
• MME Writing – – Some ACT English and ACT Writing
• MME Math – – Some ACT Math, some WorkKeys Applied Mathematics, some
WorkKeys Locating Information, and Michigan Mathematics• MME Science –
– Some ACT Science and Michigan Science• MME Social Studies –
– Some WorkKeys Locating Information and Michigan Social Studies
What else could we use to predict student success on MME?
• Transcripts of Student Courses
• Grades of Students in Courses
• Curriculum Alignment to:– Michigan Curriculum Framework– New High School Course Expectations– ACT College Readiness Standards– Work Keys Skill Sets
So, what can you do for Spring 2009 MME?
• Use data points on this year’s juniors to:– Identify students who have “assets” for success
• Previous MEAP Scores – Winter 2005 and Fall 2005
• Previous ACT Scores• Previous PLAN Scores• Previous EXPLORE Scores• NWEA results
– Identify students who need assistance with the testing formats
• Persuasive writings using MME rubrics• Analyzing data in graphs, charts, and tables• Use of released items from MDE• Teach strategies for completing MME
What We Already Know About Data Analysis and
Change in Instructional Practices• Zellmer (1997)
– Without specific expectations and professional development, teachers will simply ignore data and continue to use the same instructional practices.
• Price-Baugh (1997)– Without data regarding alignment to State standards,
teachers will not supplement their use of instructional resources to help students meet the standards.
• Moss-Mitchell (1998)– Student learning increases across socio-economic and
gender predictors when coupled with:• filling in gaps between tests and instructional materials• supervision to monitor curriculum alignment• focused professional development• public copies of aligned district curriculum• the involvement of school principals
Source: English and Steffy, (2001), Deep Curriculum Alignment, pp. 91-97.
So, what can you do beyond 2009?
• Analyze student scores from recent MEAP– Performance levels, scaled scores, strands,
constructed responses
• Analyze the students’ current courses– Academic success? Work Habits? Social Behaviors?
• Analyze the students’ demographic factors– Attendance, parent involvement, peer group support,
special education services
• Look for patterns…investigate a case study – Gaps in content knowledge, misconceptions on
concepts, lack of efficacy in reasoning or writing
This stuff can’t hurt you…
• Align your curriculum to the High School Course Expectations (HSCEs)– Create local documents, develop common
assessments, hold team meetings to study student work
• Increase the use of formative assessment• Educate parents about their role in a
standards-based educational system• Expect all students to succeed; publicly
celebrate their achievements
Questions?Stan Masters
Coordinator of
Instructional Data Services
Lenawee Intermediate School District
2946 Sutton Road
Adrian, Michigan 49921
517-265-1606 (phone)
517-263-7079 (fax)
[email protected]://www.lisd.us/curriculum/