part 3
2
Assignment#1: Data Analysis & Curriculum Design- Part 1
School
Brooks Elementary School is a K through 6 school is a government funded school that got an evaluation of a B for the 2018-2019 school year. The school is in the North Bolivar Consolidated School District. The student enrollment is 274, of that enrollment there is 269 African American, one white and four Hispanic. The major industries in the Delta include farming and factories. Delta farming lands make up most of the geographical area. The socioeconomic status in Duncan consists mostly of low-income families with a few middle-income and upper-income families in the area.
The socioeconomic status at Brooks Elementary is very similar to the community’s socioeconomic status; most of the students at Brooks Elementary come from low-income to middle income families. According to the school statistics of the 274 students enrolled at Brooks Elementary are eligible for free lunch. Brooks Elementary School has one principal, one lead teacher, 15 full time certified teachers, four paraprofessionals, one librarian, one gifted teacher, one P.E. teacher, two janitorial staff, one counselor, and one medical attendant. All 28 classrooms are equipped with 5 computers that are internet accessible. Each classroom has a promethean board, whiteboard, and a television VCR/DVD combination. Every student received their own Chromebook from the school. The teacher ratio is 1:23 students per classroom. There are a variety of programs for eligible students including Gifted Education, Speech and Language, Learning Disability, and Resource. The highly qualified staff works closely with the parents or guardians to provide the best possible setting and education for the students.
Topic
This study is insightful of the third grade English Language Arts (ELA) benchmarks assessments. Third graders in the state of Mississippi must passed the MAAP ELA assessment to be promoted to the fourth grade. The third benchmark assessment was comprehensive with a passing rate of 40.2 %. The result is from CASE Assessment School Report.
There were 85 students in the North Bolivar Consolidated School District that participated in taking the ELA Benchmark Assessment. The result of the district with a passing rate was 38.5%. There is a reading deficiency across the district. The test score indicated on the analysis is poor and below the recommended score. The proficient score is also low as it is below 50%. The trend of the reading score is shifting as is not constant across the years. Despite that there is a positive progress when it comes to improvement. I believe when the proper plan is in place to increase student achievement, the reading test score will be significantly improved. The results of the assessment are in the chart below.
Results of Third Grade, Comprehensive, Benchmark Assessments
|
Assessment Items: 48 |
Assessment Results |
|||||
|
Class, School & District Results |
Class Per |
Total Score |
Avg. percent Correct |
Projected. (Projected) Proficient (Pass) % (%) |
Average Scale Score |
Average Suggested Marks |
|
Teacher |
1 |
21 |
39.6 |
10 (29) |
349 |
69-D |
|
Teacher |
2 |
23 |
40.8 |
17 (52) |
350 |
70-C |
|
Brooks Elementary |
All |
44 |
40.2 |
14 (41) |
349 |
69-D |
|
NBCS |
All |
85 |
38.5 |
12 (35) |
347 |
68-D |
Source: CASE 21 Benchmark Assessment Report
Rationale
An image might merit thousand words, yet in instruction, data says a lot. Information such as data analysis can give a depiction of what students know, what they should know, and how teachers can meet the students’ academic needs. With suitable analysis and translation of information, teachers can settle on educated choices that emphatically influence student results. Research has shown that using data instructional decisions can lead to improved student performance (Wayman, 2005). No particular assessment can give teachers a true picture of all they need to know to decide on instruction choices to meet the students’ academic needs. This data will help the teacher prepare for state testing by reviewing skills that is weighted mostly on the test according to Mississippi 3rd Grade blueprint.
Data Relate to Benchmark Assessment
|
Standards
|
Percentage |
|
RI 3.3-Describe the relationship between a series of historical events, scientific ideas or concepts, of steps in technical procedures in a text, using language that pertains to time, sequence, and cause/effect |
31.80% |
|
RI 3.5-Use text features and search tools to locate information relevant to a given topic efficiently. |
22.70% |
|
RI 3.6- Distinguish their own point of view from that of the author of a text. |
30.70% |
|
RL 3.6-Distinguish their own point of view from that of the narrator of those of the characters. |
31.80% |
|
RL 3.9- Compare and contrast the themes, settings, and pots of stories written by the same author about the same or similar characters. |
28.40% |
Based on the Benchmark Assessment students scored the lowest on the above English Language Arts Standards. The students did not master the standards with the highest percentage a little over 31%. Teachers and students use assessment information as a feedback loop to determine learning successes and needs during the learning. Teachers also use assessment information to evaluate level of mastery on content standards after learning is supposed to have occurred (Chappius & Stiggins, p. 37, 2017). This Benchmark Assessment was comprehensive with all the standards that have been taught.
Based on the 44 students who took the assessment scored extremely low in the above reading standards. This graph shows the lowest performing standards that were tested on the final comprehensive benchmark. The results indicate that the standards need to be retaught to the students as a whole group. As an administrator, I will meet with the teacher to discuss the areas of concern related to the low percentage of standards. After the teacher reteach the standards the students should improve and master the standards.
Looking at the educational programs and standards will assist teachers with improving their instruction of learning to incorporate procedures to address the deficiencies. Teachers will actually want to examine their showing draws near and give developmental evaluations to check students understanding of the standards.
The SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, results-oriented/relevant, time bound) goal to address these issues is:
By the end of the school year, the students will be able to master the standards with 70% accuracy, measured by the end of the course exam.
References
Chappius, J., and Stiggins, R.J. (2017). An Introduction to Student Involved Assessment for
Learning (7th ed.) Boston, MA: Pearson Course.
Wayman, J. C. (2005). Involving teachers in data-driven decision-making: Using computer data
systems to support teacher and reflection. Journal of Education for Students Placed at
Risk, 10(3), 295-308.
Rubric
|
|
Exemplary |
Acceptable |
Developing |
|
Technology tool used to analyze and share quantitative data. 4 pts.
|
Includes detailed description of the school settings (level, size, demographics, and more) Data correctly analyzed in detail including subgroups using an appropriate technology tool (2.5 pts) and accurately displayed in a table and graphical representation. (1.5 pts) |
Includes description of the school settings (level, size, demographics). Data correctly analyzed using an appropriate technology tool (2 pts) and accurately displayed in a table or graphical representation. (0.75) |
Fails to include description of the school settings with level, size, or demographics. Data analyzed not using a technology tool or incorrectly analyzed or displayed in a table or graphical representation, or not displayed. (0.-0.5) |
|
Students’ learning outcomes analyzed. 10 pts. |
Students' learning outcomes correctly analyzed in standardized test, diagnostic tests, and other appropriate data. (6 points) Links to tools used to analyze and display data included. (1 point) Narrative identifies and explains standards related to area of concern. (1.5pt). Correctly set Smart goals address all areas of concern. (1.5pt). |
Students' learning outcomes analyzed in 2 of these: standardized test, diagnostic tests, other appropriate data. (5 pts) Link to tool used to analyze or display data is included. (0.5 pts) Narrative names or explains standards related to area of concern. (0.5pt).Correctly set Smart goals address most areas of concern. (1pt). |
Students' learning outcomes analyzed in 1 of these: standardized test, diagnostic tests, other appropriate data. (1-4) No link to tool used to analyze or display data is included. (0 pt.) No narrative on standards related to area of concern (0 pt.) or narrative is incomplete. (0 pt.) Smart goals address less than 50 % of areas of concern or are incorrect. (0.5-0pt). |
|
Part 1 formatting, APA, and Writing for each part of assignment. 1 point. |
FSE cover page is included, double space is used. There is a list of references. APA guidelines are used correctly for citations. There are no grammatical errors or misspellings. (Full credit) |
One of these items is missing: FSE cover page, double space, or a list of reference. APA guidelines are used correctly for most citations. One or two grammatical errors or misspellings. (-1 point.) |
Two or more of these items are missing: FSE cover page, double space, or a list of reference. APA guidelines are used incorrectly for most citations. Three or more grammatical errors or misspellings. (-2 points.) |
Standards Below Average
RI3.3 RI3.5 RI3.6 RI 3.9 RL3.6 RL3.9 0.26100000000000001 0.22700000000000001 0.182 0.307 0.318 0.28399999999999997 Column1
RI3.3 RI3.5 RI3.6 RI 3.9 RL3.6 RL3.9 0.26100000000000001 22.7 0.182 0.307 0.318 0.28399999999999997