1. We can see improvement on the NJASK/HSPA scores 2. We don't know the relationship of the NJASK and HSPA test 3. Sit down with both of the assessments and see where the similarities are between the tests/ and the differences so we can bridge the gaps.
Just eyeballing this, we're about a 3:1 ratio of PP students on NJASK who did NOT achieve proficiency on the HSPA three years later as opposed to those who did. So there is a correlation between PP on ASK and PP on HSPA.
We would need to look at what interventions we used over those three years, which students had them (and when), and how those might correlate with the results.
We need to identify these students. Look at their growth/lack of growth on district assessments and previous state assessments. What interventions received? What interventions should be receiving?
We should not be surprised by disappointing results like this if we have not been gathering data in grades 9 and 10. So is there formative data that we can use that will guide our interventions--who gets them, when, for how long, etc?
More students did better on the HSPA in math than they did on the NJASK. Less students were partially proficient on the HSPA. More students were partially proficient on the NJASK than were proficient. It seems student did better in high school that middle school.
1. We can see improvement on the NJASK/HSPA scores
ReplyDelete2. We don't know the relationship of the NJASK and HSPA test
3. Sit down with both of the assessments and see where the similarities are between the tests/ and the differences so we can bridge the gaps.
There were more students who were PP on the NJ ASK8 than were PP on the HSPA. However, they stayed PP on the HSPA.
ReplyDeleteJust eyeballing this, we're about a 3:1 ratio of PP students on NJASK who did NOT achieve proficiency on the HSPA three years later as opposed to those who did. So there is a correlation between PP on ASK and PP on HSPA.
ReplyDeleteWe would need to look at what interventions we used over those three years, which students had them (and when), and how those might correlate with the results.
There was not an enormous amount of change at all. A few of the higher level students in the NJASK, scored lower in the HSPA.
ReplyDeleteWe need to identify these students. Look at their growth/lack of growth on district assessments and previous state assessments. What interventions received? What interventions should be receiving?
ReplyDeleteConsistent clusters….not showing significant improvement over time
ReplyDeleteWe should not be surprised by disappointing results like this if we have not been gathering data in grades 9 and 10. So is there formative data that we can use that will guide our interventions--who gets them, when, for how long, etc?
ReplyDeleteMore students did better on the HSPA in math than they did on the NJASK.
ReplyDeleteLess students were partially proficient on the HSPA.
More students were partially proficient on the NJASK than were proficient.
It seems student did better in high school that middle school.
Majority of the kids that failed the NJASK 8 test failed the HSPA also.
ReplyDeleteThose students who did extremely well on the NJ ASK did not do as well on the HSPA.
We do not know their Cluster scores, which will indicate strengths and weaknesses.
The high school needs to look at the Cluster scores and prescribe intentional remediation and support.
We do not know what classes the students are taking. Are the students properly placed?