PSSA and the Girard School District

An analysis of the 2009 results and their implications.

Katrina JohnstonED520INA

“It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.”

W. Edward Deming

Purpose for Presentation

• Look at NCLB/PSSA tests

• Analyze our PSSA Scores

• Suggest some solutions

for improvement

How did we get here?

• No Child Left Behind

– accountability for results

– high expectations for students

– “more freedom” for states and

communities

– proven education methods

– more choices for parents

How does NCLB affect PA?

• High Standards

• Annual Assessments

• Accountability for Results

• Highly Qualified Teachers in Every Classroom (HQT)

• Information and Options for Parents

• All Children on Grade Level By 2014

PA Educational Standards

• Approved for all subjects– Arts and Humanities

– History

– Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening

– Civics and Government

– Math Science and Technology

– Family and Consumer Science

– Geography

PSSA Tests

• Students test in 3-8 & 11th grade

– Reading (AYP)

– Mathematics (AYP)

– Writing

– Science

PSSA Tests

• Identify what students should know

and be able to do at varying grade

levels.

• Standards-based assessment

used to measure a student’s

attainment of the academic

standards.

PSSA Scores

• Assist teachers in identifyingstudents who need of additional

educational opportunities.

• Provide information to schools for curriculum and instruction improvement and

planning.

Current Advanced/Proficiency Levels

• Reading = 63%• Mathematics = 56 %

• Currently Writing and Science scores are not used when determining AYP.

Making AYP

• Schools must make targets overall AND in subgroups.

• Subgroup = 40 or more students within a group.

– IEP students– Economically Disadvantaged

Making AYP

• Graduation rate and overall attendance also taken into account.

• Participation (%) in the tests also is considered (for overall and subgroups).

Pennsylvania's General Performance Level Descriptors

Advanced Proficient Basic Below Basic

• superior academic performance

• an in-depth understanding and exemplary display of the skills

• satisfactory academic performance

• solid understanding and adequate display of the skills

• marginal academic performance

• partial understanding/ limited display of the skills

• approaching satisfactory performance

• need for additional instructional opportunities

• inadequate academic performance  • little understanding and minimal display of the skills

• major need for additional instructional opportunities and/or increased student academic commitment

Analysis of Reading Scores Elk Valley Elementary School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

Overall 82.7 0.1 √

IEP/Special Education

39.6 4.8 SHC*

Economically Disadvantaged 78.9 6.3 √

2009 Target = 63%

Analysis of Reading Scores - EVES

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last

Year

Result

IEP/Special Education

39.6 4.8 SHC*

*Safe Harbor with Confidence Interval

• group did not meet AYP in previous year

• ≥10% reduction in # of students below proficient

• C.I. allowed for Safe Harbor is 75%.

Comparison to County Schools

Wat

tsbu

rg

Union

City

North

weste

rn

North

east

Iroqu

ois

Harbo

rcre

ek

Girard

Gener

al M

cLan

e

Fort

LeBoe

uf

Fairv

iew

Corry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

82.7

Overall Grades 3-5 Reading

Analysis of Reading Scores Rice Avenue Middle School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

Overall 78.0 6.0 √

IEP/Special Education

29.0 3.5 SHC

Economically Disadvantaged 66.8 5.4 √

2009 Target = 63%

Comparison to County Schools

Wat

tsbu

rg

Union

City

North

weste

rn

North

east

Iroqu

ois

Harbo

rcre

ek

Girard

Gener

al M

cLan

e

Fort

LeBoe

uf

Fairv

iew

Corry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

78

Overall Grades 6-8 Reading

Analysis of Reading Scores Girard High School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

Overall 65.9 -2.1 √

Economically Disadvantaged 48.2 -13.7 X

2009 Target = 63%

School Improvement I - GHS

• Result of not making AYP for 2 consecutive years.

• Infrastructure changes must occur.

Comparison to County Schools

Wat

tsbu

rg

Union

City

North

weste

rn

North

east

Iroqu

ois

Harbo

rcre

ek

Girard

Gener

al M

cLan

e

Fort

LeBoe

uf

Fairv

iew

Corry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

65.9

Overall 9-12 Reading

Analysis of Mathematics Scores Elk Valley Elementary School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

Overall 93.6 4.6 √

IEP/Special Education

72.9 18.6 √

Economically Disadvantaged 89.4 6.5 √

2009 Target = 56%

Comparison to County Schools

Wat

tsbu

rg

Union

City

North

weste

rn

North

east

Iroqu

ois

Harbo

rcre

ek

Girard

Gener

al M

cLan

e

Fort

LeBoe

uf

Fairv

iew

Corry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

10093.6

Overall Math Grades 3-5

Analysis of Mathematic Scores Rice Avenue Middle School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

Overall 86.3 -2.2 √

IEP/Special Education 48.0 -4.9 CI*

Economically Disadvantaged 76.5 -6.1 √

2009 Target = 56%

Analysis of Mathematic Scores Rice Avenue Middle School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

IEP/Special Education 48.0 -4.9 CI*

Confidence Interval (CI)

• Students abilities vary from year to year.

• 95% CI used for AYP.

Comparison to County Schools

Wat

tsbu

rg

Union

City

North

weste

rn

North

east

Iroqu

ois

Harbo

rcre

ek

Girard

Gener

al M

cLan

e

Fort

LeBoe

uf

Fairv

iew

Corry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

86.3

Overall Math Grades 6-8

Analysis of Mathematic Scores Girard High School

% At/Above Proficient

Inc./Dec. from Last Year

Result

Overall 61.1 -6.2 √

Economically Disadvantaged 48.2 -8.9 CI

2009 Target = 56%

Comparison to County Schools

Wat

tsbu

rg

Union

City

North

weste

rn

North

east

Iroqu

ois

Harbo

rcre

ek

Girard

Gener

al M

cLan

e

Fort

LeBoe

uf

Fairv

iew

Corry

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

61.1

Overall Math Grades 9-12

Why do we need to improve?

• AYP targets are the same this year, but …

Year Reading Math

2010 - 2011 67% 72%

2011 - 2012 78% 81%

2012 - 2013 89% 91%

2013 - 2014 100% 100%

Why do we need to improve?

• GHS is in School Improvement

– Must now make AYP 2 years in a row to be removed from School Improvement I.

– Must develop and implement an improvement plan.

How Can We Improve?

Methods to Improve Scores

“Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting the different results”

- Albert Einstein.

Time?

• Learning is a function of time.

• Increase time in naturally aligned courses.– Reading/Writing across the

curriculum– Increase emphasis on math in

math based sciences

More Core Course (for those who need them)

• Increase English reading and math

• Link courses• Target students in 10th grade

for PSSA pro-active classes

Integrate Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum

• Send more teachers to PLN training.

• Provide in-house training on literacy strategies.

• Increase reading and writing in ALL classes.

Other Changes

• Study skills and test taking mini-courses.

• Small group, classroom testing as opposed to mass testing in the auditorium.

Student Attitude

“The learner's attitude is thus an essential factor to determine the direction of his learning, whether he shall learn to do or not learn to do.”

- William Kilpatrick, Prof of Education 1917

Teacher’s Attitude

“Don't try to fix the students, fix ourselves first.  The good teacher makes the poor student good and the good student superior.  When our students fail, we, as teachers, too, have failed.”

- Marva Collins

Review

• We are not in bad shape, but we do need to improve.

• GHS must make changes to come out of School Improvement.

Review

• All schools need to reach out to the economically disadvantaged and IEP sub-groups.

• Literacy strategies need to be incorporated in the middle school and high school.

Review

• Strategic interventions need to occur.

• Administrators, teachers and students need to be active participants in change.

ResourcesAlbert Einstein (photo). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from

http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/albert_einstein_-325x378.png?w=325&h=378.

Keep thinking (photo). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.thinkingtub.com/joomla/images/stories/about_us/keep_thinking.jpg.

Expert panel on assessment and accountability. (June 2007). Assessment and accountability for improving schools and learning: Principles and recommendations for federal law and state and local systems. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from www.edaccountability.org.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (January 2009). Accommodations guidelines.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. Assessment. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/site/default.asp.

ResourcesPennsylvania Department of Education. (November 2004). Context counts:

Background and strategies for improving student achievement. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/PDE_Context_Counts_11_9_04_Presentation.pdf.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (September 2008). Data informed decision making: A school level blueprint in a standards aligned system. Retrieved September 11, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/08Blueprint5-14-08.pdf.

Pennsylvania Department of Education. (April 2004). Pennsylvania’s NCLB position paper. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/nclb/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=105927.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). NCLB and other elementary/secondary policy documents. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html