ELA+Data+Analysis+Session+Summer+2010

Virginia Glynn, Linda Young, Michele Juric, and Elizabeth Turner worked together to analyze the 3-8 ELA tests. We had many thoughts and raised even more questions. We started off by asking in general, · // What services do work? // · // How do we ensure equal access to the curriculum via mapping? // Over the course of the day, we discussed the following:
 * We need to separate out the Special Ed test results and analyze them as a group
 * It would be useful for the teachers at each level to see the actual students' tests in order to contextualize the scores. The tests themselves are sent directly to the buildings, where teachers can ask to look at them.
 * In looking at the raw score to cut score conversion chart, one can see how difficult earning a 4 was in 2010. Students could miss only 1 or 2 questions.
 * Having the data on Performance Tracker earlier (i.e., receiving the disks earlier and uploading them) would make item analysis easier.
 * Phrasing a question with "which ... BEST explains ...," consistently threw the students off.

In looking at the data, we found the following interesting: We looked at how student performed in each area on the ELA 6 and the ELA 5:
 * The three elementary buildings had varied results. Opportunities exist for the 3 elementary buildings to discuss trends. How are specific skills being taught explicitly in one school, and how can those strengths be shared?
 * There were questions on the ELA3 which did not seem developmentally appropriate (i.e., what is real vs. what is not real).
 * A number of Special Ed students are working below grade level, making the exam even more difficult for them
 * At the MS level, being able to compare how students did from one year to the next proved interesting. Some did better; others worse.
 * The MS often examines trends and focuses in on the terminology; teachers then teach that terminology specifically. It would be useful to move beyond the terminology and present students with several approaches/strategies to employ while taking the exams.
 * Comments on the ELA 7 & 8: **
 * We looked at how students performed in each area on the ELA 7 and ELA 8:
 * Critical Analysis
 * Information & Understanding
 * Literary Expression
 * Extended Response
 * Trend: the following areas in the ELA 7 question/responses presented particular difficulties for our students:
 * Interpretation
 * Evaluating
 * Drawing conclusions
 * Making inferences
 * These are the abstract concepts which correlate with the data specificially about low-SES needs and skill development which can be addressed through explicit instruction (though this will benefit all students, no matter their SES)
 * Comments on the ELA 6 and ELA 5: **
 * Critical Analysis
 * Information & Understanding
 * Literary Expression
 * Writing mechanics
 * Comparing the 6th-grade with the students’ 5th-grade level, few students increased their score, while many declined
 * On the ELA 6, the students do better with the listening than they do the reading
 * For the ELA 5, we saw the same trend. This year, however, the cut scores were dramatically different, which helps explain this
 * Critical Analysis seems to be the curricular area of greatest need in grades 5 and 6
 * Note: in looking at points earned, there appear to be errors or fluctuations. There were numerous cases where children showed growth in the number of points earned, but they declined a level because of how the cut scores were re-set.

Comments on the ELA 3 and ELA 4: On the ELA 4, 145 students took the test; more than half earned a 3 or better.
 * We looked at how students did in the four areas:
 * Critical Analysis
 * Information & Understanding
 * Literary Response & Expression
 * Written responses
 * **According to our analysis, writing seems to be an area calling for focus in grade 4**
 * On the ELA 3, 147 students took the test; more than half earned a 3 or better.**


 * Writing seems to be an area of strength in grade 3