Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Annual Student Achievement and Performance Report for School Year 2017-18
Butler School District #53 Superintendent’s Report to the Board of Education
November 12, 2018
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................3
Context and Background Information for Report ...........................................................................5
Report on Annual Student Academic Performance ........................................................................7
Measures of Academic Progress.............................................................................................7 PARCC.................................................................................................................................. 16 5Essentials School Effectiveness........................................................................................... 22
2017-18 Data Insights and Recommendations for Student Learning.............................................. 26
Appendix I: Student Growth 2016-17 .......................................................................................... 29
2
Butler School District #53 Superintendent’s Report
Date: November 12, 2018
Title: Summary: Annual Student Achievement and Performance Report 2017-18
Summary
• Butler 53 has been one of the highest performing districts in the state based on percentile rank distribution of the PARCC data for grades 3-8 for both ELA and Math.
• Both Butler SD 53 Schools were designated as Distinguished schools by the State of Illinois. • Butler 53 has outperformed almost all the district’s historically designated comparable schools in
reading and math, as measured by PARCC. • The 2017-18 PARCC results for students with IEPs meeting or exceeding standards on state assessments
was 40% in reading and 47% in math. This was much higher than state average for 9% and 8% respectively for reading and math, as measured by PARCC.
• Students, on average in Butler School District 53 evidence consistent academic performance at 2-3 grade levels above the national norm, as measured by NWEA’s MAP assessment. Sustaining their growth and percentile is a pre-requisite for student achievement. For the year 2017-18, overall 69% students in reading and 60% students in math met their typical growth target as prescribed by NWEA.
• All grade levels, based on their average RIT in Fall and Spring for academic year 2017-18 are in the top 1-5% nationally for reading and in top 1-2% nationally for math. End of year attainment scores for NWEA MAP were more than 95th percentile in reading and math across all grade levels, which evidences distinguished academic achievement.
• In alignment with the District’s plan for comprehensive individualized student growth analysis, the District will continue to ensure lower performing students receive intensive and targeted support as well as attending to the needs of the higher performing students to assist them with meaningful and effective enrichment.
Butler SD 53’s performance for school year 2017-18 has been evaluated on achievement and growth metrics for both internal standardized assessment NWEA MAP and external state-mandated summative assessment PARCC. Performance of the district and individual schools is analyzed and then evaluated on a performance rubric. The rubric for the performance is outlined in the table below:
District Performance Rubric Assessment PARCC MAP Attainment MAP Growth
Metric Percent Rank Average RIT Score % Students Meeting Growth Target
Distinguished Proficient Satisfactory Basic
75%-100% 51%-74% 26%-50%
0-25%
2 or more grade level above 1 or more grade level above
At grade level Below grade level
70% or higher 60%-69.9% 50%-59.9% Below 50%
Source State Distribution National NWEA Research (2015) National NWEA Research
3
As outlined above, the performance rubric comprises both achievement and growth metrics, which are used to evaluate district performance for the past school year. Publicly available data was used to generate percentile ranks for all districts (grade 3-8) in the state. For MAP attainment and growth, NWEA research norms were used to benchmark performance for our students. Tables below provides the summary of the district performance overall on PARCC Assessment and NWEA MAP for English Language Arts and Mathematics.
Summary District Performance 2017-18 PARCC MAP Attainment MAP Growth
% Meets or
Exceeds (SY18)
Percent Rank Performance
Average RIT Score
(Spring'18)
Grade Level Equivalent
(Approximate) Performance
% Meets/ Exceeds (F'17 -Sp'18)
Performance
ELA 81.3 99.6% Distinguished NA NA NA 69% Proficient
Math 74.7 99.1% Distinguished NA NA NA 60% Proficient
District Performance 2017-18: English Language Arts
District Performance 2017-18: English Language Arts
Grade Levels
PARCC MAP Attainment MAP Growth % Meets or
Exceeds (SY18)
Percent Rank (State
Distribution) Performance
Average RIT Score
(Spring'18)
Grade Level Equivalent
Approximations Performance
% Meets/ Exceeds (F'17
- Sp'18) Performance
Grade 2 NA NA NA 202.5 MOY 4th Distinguished 68% Proficient
Grade 3 72.2 97% Distinguished 213.7 MOY 6th Distinguished 79% Distinguished
Grade 4 81.8 99% Distinguished 216.5 MOY 7th Distinguished 59% Satisfactory
Grade 5 88.1 100% Distinguished 224.4 EOY 11th Distinguished 69% Proficient
Grade 6 74.1 97% Distinguished 225.3 EOY 11th Distinguished 60% Proficient
Grade 7 92.3 100% Distinguished 234.5 EOY 11th Distinguished 80% Distinguished
Grade 8 78.4 98% Distinguished 237.0 EOY 11th Distinguished 62% Proficient Overall All 81.3 99.6% Distinguished NA NA NA 69% Proficient
District Performance 2017-18: Math
4
District Performance 2017-18: Math
PARCC MAP Attainment MAP Growth % Meets or
Exceeds (SY18)
Percent Rank (State
Distribution) Performance
Average RIT Score
(Spring'18)
Grade Level Equivalent
Approximations Performance
% Meets/ Exceeds (F'17
- Sp'18) Performance
Grade 2 NA NA NA 206.5 MOY 4th Distinguished 44% Basic
Grade 3 77.1 97% Distinguished 219.6 MOY 6th Distinguished 54% Satisfactory
Grade 4 67.3 95% Distinguished 228.3 EOY 7th Distinguished 59% Satisfactory
Grade 5 74.6 99% Distinguished 242.0 EOY 11th Distinguished 58% Satisfactory
Grade 6 58.6 96% Distinguished 241.2 EOY 11th Distinguished 59% Satisfactory
Grade 7 90.9 100% Distinguished 253.5 EOY 11th Distinguished 70% Distinguished
Grade 8 76.6 99% Distinguished 259.7 EOY 11th Distinguished 72% Distinguished Overall All 74.7 99.1% Distinguished NA NA NA 60% Proficient
Butler 53 has consistently been one of the highest performing districts in the state based on percentile rank distribution of the state data for grades 3-8 for both ELA and Math. NWEA norms only provide grade level norms for the MAP RIT scores. So grade level norms have been used to benchmark performance for the district. For MAP growth, the district was proficient. Students attending Butler 53 Schools continue to outperform the vast majority of districts in the state, including those attending comparable school districts.
State Designations 2018
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides the opportunity for districts and schools to build on existing strengths and to close academic achievement gaps. ESSA creates the statewide conditions to support districts, schools, and most importantly, students who need additional assistance and resources. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) is beginning its comprehensive implementation of ESSA as required by the federal government. The following table provides a snapshot of the summative designations of both schools in the district.
5
Date: November 12, 2018
Title: Context and Background Information for the Report of Annual Student Academic Achievement & Growth Performance 2017-18
Context and Background Information:
Students in grades K-8 are tested in Reading and Math at the Beginning of the Year (BOY) and End of the Year (EOY) on the Measurement of Academic Progress (MAP) test created by the Northwest Evaluation Association (NWEA). The MAP test is “adaptive” in nature and becomes more difficult as students continue to answer questions correctly. Butler School District is currently using the latest version of MAP that is aligned to the Common Core State Standards. The following website offers more information about NWEA and MAP for those interested in learning more about this assessment series http://www.nwea.org/
NWEA MAP is primarily used in grades 2-8 in both reading and math at Butler School District. It is used to assess students’ instructional level and support teacher planning for differentiated practices in classroom. It predicts performance at grade level and benchmarks associated with college readiness assessments such as ACT/SAT. It additionally measures student growth from fall to spring and assists schools, teachers and leaders to set appropriate goals for students.
In fall, students obtain a BOY (beginning of year) score in Reading and Math. This score, referred to as a RIT score, is also aligned to a National Percentile Ranking as millions of students also take this exam across the country and establish a “benchmark” or typical score range by grade level. Depending on a student’s BOY score and grade level, each student is also given an EOY (end of year) “target score”. This target score represents the typical growth that can be expected given the BOY score recorded. Typical growth scores are usually set to maintain a student’s National Percentile Ranking. In other words, the MAP test adds a greater degree of difficulty at MOY (middle of year) and EOY as students are expected to learn new grade-level material throughout a given academic year.
Common Core standards, a more rigorous set of academic standards, have been adopted by many states across the country and teachers have been using them in their daily instruction since adoption. As a result, states needed high-quality assessments aligned to those standards that would test students of all achievement levels on what they are learning. The PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) assessment system is an annual year-end test in English language arts/literacy, and mathematics in grades 3-8.
The PARCC assessment1 serves as an "educational GPS system," designed to measure students' current performance in English language arts/literacy and mathematics. It will point the way to what students need to learn in order to be ready for the next grade level, high school graduation, and for college or a career. The PARCC test is aligned to the Illinois Learning Standards, which are focused on critical thinking and real world application. Schools and students receive an annual score report that is designed to let us know how students are progressing academically and provide feedback about current performance in relation to the standards.
1 http://www.parcconline.org/about/the-parcc-tests
6
NWEA MAP and PARCC assessments provide multiple sources of student work and help teachers make instructional decisions for students. The PARCC assessment is designed to give schools and teachers more information to support improvement and differentiation in instruction.
During the previous academic year, schools in Butler SD 53 completed the 5Essentials School Effectiveness Surveys in 2018. Researchers at the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research used 20 years of evidence to define five essential components of organization and climate related to improving schools. These researchers showed that schools strong on these Essentials are more likely to:
• improve student learning and attendance year after year; • graduate students from high school; • improve student ACT scores; • get students into college; and • retain their teachers.
Each of the Essentials provide a different lens into the organizational and learning conditions at schools in Butler SD 53 and provides guidance on how each of its schools can organize its work. The report will dive deeper into the results of the survey and how it impacts the road ahead.
7
Date: November 12, 2018
Title: Report of Annual Student Academic Achievement & Growth Performance 2017-18
Butler School District Academic Performance 2017-18:
1. Student Growth and Attainment
Students, on average in Butler School District 53 started 2-3 grade levels above the national norm (i.e. typical student in that grade level) in fall 2017. Sustaining their growth and percentile is a pre-requisite for student achievement. For the year 2017-18, overall 69% students in reading and 60% students in math met their typical growth target as prescribed by NWEA. Overall growth in reading improved considerably from SY20162 and math saw a decline from the previous year. The same positive trend was observed in both elementary and junior high schools, as well.
Chart 1: Student Growth 2017-18
Deeper analysis at the grade levels demonstrated a mixed trend in reading and math for SY 2018, similar to data from SY 2017. Reading in SY 2018 grew substantially compared to previous year overall. 4th, 6th and 8th were lowest among all grades. However, compared to SY 2017, all grade levels showed sizeable improvement in growth. 7th grade showed a considerable improvement in student growth from last year.
2 SY = School Year
8
In SY 2018, all grade levels showed a decline in student growth from SY2017. This was a reverse trend from last year where most grades had seen considerable improvement from SY 2016. Almost all grade levels in elementary school and grade 6 in Junior High were below 60%.
In SY 2018, reading growth was substantially higher than math growth across all grade levels, a repeat from SY 2016. In SY 2017, the student growth was similar across grade levels and subjects. Despite extraordinary levels of attainment in math across all grade levels, continued augmentation of math enrichment and reinforcement opportunities will be meaningful and effective to securing continuous growth.
Chart 2: Student Growth 2017-18: By School & Grade
In alignment with the District’s plan for comprehensive individualized student growth analysis, the District will continue to ensure lower performing students receive intensive and targeted support as well as attending to the needs of the higher performing students to assist them with meaningful and effective enrichment. Data from 2017-18 academic year was broken down into two such categories to analyze effectiveness of strategies for these two student groups.
1. At/Below 35th percentile to identify lowest performing students for reading and math. This aligns well with the MTSS/Response to Intervention recommendations of identify students less than 40th percentile across the district to provide targeted support.
In SY 2018, for reading, the district saw a 5 % decline in the number of students at/below 35th percentile across all grade levels. 10% point decline was observed in grade 2 and 3 with marginal decrease in Grade 5.
9
2-5% decline in number of students was observed in middle grades between Fall and Spring unlike SY 2017 where there was increase in this student group. This is important because the scores demonstrate that the percent of at-risk learners is reducing during the school year in response to effective MTSS targeted interventions in reading language arts.
In math, in SY 2018, the number of student at/below 35th percentile remained the same at 6% between Fall and Spring. The chart below provides further analysis for different grade levels by subject. This data suggests the need for expanded implementation of MTSS targeted interventions in mathematics.
Chart 3: Student Performance At/Below 35th Percentile 2017-18: By Subject & Grade
2. At/Above 90th percentile is used to identify exceptionally high performing students for reading and math. College readiness is the most important goal of academic achievement for students in elementary and high school. According to NWEA ACT study3, generally, middle school students are likely to be college ready if they performed between the 70th to 84th percentiles in mathematics or between the 66th to 75th percentiles in reading for an ACT college readiness benchmark of 24. This benchmark, which takes into consideration the college admissions profile of enrolled students in major state universities across the country, is more stringent than the widely circulated ACT College readiness benchmark of 22. For the less stringent ACT = 22 benchmark, middle school students are likely to be college ready if they performed between the 61st to 76th percentiles in mathematics or between the 59th to 69th percentiles in reading on MAP.
3 MAP College Readiness Benchmarks: A Research Brief (August 2015)
10
In spring 2018, 32% in reading and 47% in math were at/ above 90th percentile at the district. The performance on this metric remained similar as SY 2017. Mixed trends were observed across grade levels at the school. Grade 6 and 8 saw a decline with other grade levels either sustaining their performance or experienced minimal increase in reading.
In comparison to SY 2017, 8th grade math showed a decrease, unlike SY 2016 when they had shown an increase of more than 15 percentage points in percent of students who were at/above 90th percentile. Grades 2,3 and 6th showed a decline in number of students in the highest decile and other grade levels improved between 6-12 percentage points between fall and spring. The chart below shows further breakdown at grade level.
Chart 4: Student Performance At/Above 90th Percentile 2017-18: By Subject & Grade
2. Status and Growth percentile 2017-18
NWEA conducts longitudinal research on their national database to answer many of the questions teachers and parents commonly ask about student test performance and achievement estimates provided from MAP tests. The status and growth percentile demonstrate a way to compare how students at Butler are performing compared to students nationally. It specifically answers questions such as:
a. What is the national percentile ranking of the student at a particular RIT compared to students who start at the same RIT nationally? (Defined by Status percentile for different testing term)
b. What is the national percentile ranking of a grade at a particular average RIT compared to other grades that start at similar average RIT nationally? (Defined by Status percentile for different testing term)
c. What is national percentile ranking of RIT growth between fall and spring compared to other grade levels who started at the same RIT nationally? (Defined by Growth percentile)
11
This further refines analysis of student and school performance and helps in setting realistic and attainable goals.
Status percentile is defined as the national percentile ranking of the grade level based on average RIT score of that testing term (fall/spring). The chart below shows the status percentile for Fall 2017 and Spring 2018. All grade levels, based on their average RIT in Fall and Spring for academic year 2017-18 are in the top 1-5% nationally for reading and in the top 1-2% for math. Math has much higher attainment levels and status percentile compared to reading. The chart below shows status percentile for reading and math for SY 2018. The performance maintained from previous school year.
Chart 5: Status Percentile 2017-18: By Subject & Grade
Conditional Growth percentile is defined as the national percentile ranking of the grade level based on the average RIT growth points between fall 2017 and spring 2018, adjusted for the standard deviation of the growth RIT.
Conditional growth percentile is one of the most critical metrics for improvement for any school system. It demonstrates growth for all district’s students compared to their national peers and how they are performing relative to students with similar attainment levels. Conditional growth percentile has been above average based on national percentiles, but has been lower than hoped based upon the students’ high attainment levels. Advanced level critical thinking skill instruction, supported by a strong enrichment program, is critical to advancing high performing students. For SY 2018, the conditional growth percentile varies for reading and math.
Specifically, for reading, the conditional growth percentile is low for grade 4 and 6. All other grade levels have improved their conditional growth percentile significantly with more than 75th percentile or above
12
nationally. In comparison to SY 2017, all grade levels have improved unlike SY 2016 where most grade levels had declined. High performing school districts struggle with growth gains. With such high attaining students, maintaining or improving growth percentile requires continuous honing of research-based instructional practices at all grade levels.
In math for SY 2018, the conditional growth percentile has decreased compared to SY 2017. All grade levels, except 4th and 7th. This result is significantly different from SY 2017 where most grade levels were more than 60th percentile for all grade levels except 2nd grade. 7 grade was highest at 85th percentile on conditional growth. Given that math has higher attainment compared to reading and students are performing at a very high level, it is important for teachers to continue to identify the strengths and weakness at the skill or concept level to provide needed supports and enrichment.
The chart below shows the average RIT growth from Fall to Spring for academic year 2017-18 and their associated national percentile ranking by grade level.
Chart 6: Growth Percentile 2017-18: By Subject & Grade
Growth is as important as attainment for all students. Despite high attainment and starting point for students in reading and math, the lower growth percentile points towards a need to strengthen and expand usage of research-based instructional strategies for supporting student learning across the district.
3. Data Slices 2017-18
Data slices represent student movement across different percentile bands to identify student progress not just on growth but also on attainment. Percentile increase defines increase in student attainment compared to their peers. The following charts demonstrate student movement in different percentile bands for the academic year 2017-18.
13
Following the trend from SY 2017, reading has seen a more significant student movement across slices as compared to math for academic year 2017-18. Number of students below 35th percentile declined substantially in SY 2018. Percentage of students in the AP success band of 76th – 89th percentile for reading also saw an increase of 13% across the district compared to 18% in SY 2017. This aligns well with the earlier remark about NWEA ACT linking study that suggests strong correlation between 75th percentile or above on NWEA to ACT college readiness benchmark of 24. For math, the students primarily maintained percentile bands with some marginal improvements, indicating that the growth was commensurate with the period of instructional time. While numbers of students in at-risk bands reduced, improvements are needed for students to continue to move away from being “Intensive / At-Risk”. These data show a need to strengthen MTSS programming and interventions.
Reading in Junior High and math in elementary school saw some reverse trends for students above 90th
percentile. Some students lost their percentile ranking between fall and spring. This needs to be considered as recommendations to create personalized pathways for all high performing students.
NWEA research provides information on linkages between NWEA percentile for students and its linkage to ACT/SAT scores and likelihood for college success and persistence, ultimately leading to improved college graduation rate.
Approximately, 75th percentile on NWEA links to a high likelihood of 24 on ACT. 44% of students in reading and 20% in math are between 51st percentile (above grade level) and 75th percentile (below college readiness benchmarks). It is important to note that the vast majority of our students are on track for select college entrance opportunities. Other students on the cusp of readiness will continue to receive intensive support and enrichment. Strengthened classroom interventions will improve their likelihood of college persistence, educational grit and post college educational opportunities. By providing targeted enrichment to students at and above grade level, the district can improve college success for all students.
The chart below shows the data slices for reading and math for district and the schools for SY 2018.
Chart 7: Data Slices 2017-18
Chart 8: Data Slices 2017-18: By School & By Subject
14
4. Goal Strands 2017-18
To understand student performance, it is crucial to see how students have performed across different goal strands in reading and math. It allows for a deeper analysis and helps in identifying target supports for students across different performance groups. On average, students started at a much higher level in goal strands across both subjects in Fall 2017.
At such high attainment, 5 RIT points is an aggressive goal for most students in reading strands. 5 RIT points was set as a benchmark to identity growth for all students in goal strands. In reading, all strands saw more than 5 RIT point improvement across grades 2-5 except 4th grade in Literary Text. When looking at the composite RIT scores by grade level, students evidenced more than double high-attainment growth. This was achieved at the elementary school in Informational Text: Key Ideas and Details, Informational Text: Language, Craft, and Structure; Literary Text: Key Ideals and Details; Literary Text: Language, Craft, and Structure, and Vocabulary Acquisition and Use.
All grade levels in upper grades increased more than 5 RIT points (High Attainment) in all strands of Informational Text and Literary Text (Key Ideas and Details). However, in grade level 6, students saw gains of 4 RIT points on average for Vocabulary Acquisition and Use.
In math, all goal strands across all grade levels demonstrated more than 5 RIT point growth. The tables below showcase goal strand performance for each school and grade level for each subject at the district.
15
Chart 9: Reading Goal Strands 2017-18: By Grade
Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18
Brook Forest School
204 215 203 214 204 214 205 215 205 214
2 186 203 186 204 188 203 187 202 190 200 3 201 214 200 212 201 213 201 215 203 214 4 210 217 210 217 207 218 212 216 209 216 5 218 225 215 224 217 223 218 225 219 226
Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18
Butler Junior High School
227 233 228 233 226 231 230 233 228 234
6 220 225 220 226 220 225 223 224 222 226 7 228 235 229 236 227 232 230 235 229 236 8 232 239 235 237 231 236 236 238 234 239
Informational Text: Key Ideas and
Details
Informational Text: Language, Craft,
and Structure
Literary Text: Key Ideas and Details
Literary Text: Language, Craft,
and Structure
Vocabulary: Acquisition and Use
Vocabulary: Acquisition and Use
Reading
More than 5 points Less than equal to 5 points
School/ Grade Level
Informational Text: Key Ideas and
Details
Informational Text: Language, Craft,
and Structure
Literary Text: Key Ideas and Details
Literary Text: Language, Craft,
and Structure
School/ Grade Level
Chart 10: Math Goal Strands 2017-18: By Grade
School/ Grade Level
Math Number and Operations
Measurement and Data
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Geometry Statistics and
Probability The Real and
Complex Number Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18
Brook Forest School
212 226 212 225 213 224 211 221
2 191 205 193 207 195 208 196 205 3 206 220 208 220 209 220 206 218 4 215 231 215 228 216 227 212 226 5
School/ Grade Level
234 248 233 242 231 241 228 236
Number and Operations
Measurement and Data
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Geometry Statistics and
Probability
The Real and Complex Number
Systems Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18 Fall 17 Spring 18
Butler Junior High School
245 252 243 253 241 249 245 253
234 243 247 254 254 262
6 234 241 232 240 230 241 7 245 253 245 256 241 250 8 255 262 253 260 252 257
More than 5 points Less than equal to 5 points
5. PARCC Student Achievement and Performance 2017-18
The PARCC assessment is being widely used by many districts as a benchmark test for rigor among all student groups. The metrics or data that emerges from the PARCC assessment is still very summative in nature and cannot be yet used to measure student growth. The assessment provides different proficiency levels for students based on a 5-point scale as outlined below:
1. Level 1: Did not yet meet expectations 2. Level 2: Partially met expectations 3. Level 3: Approaching expectations 4. Level 4: Met expectations 5. Level 5: Exceeded expectations
16
Students performing at levels 4 and 5 (met or exceeded expectations) have demonstrated readiness for the next grade level/course and, ultimately, are on track for college and careers. Performance Level Descriptors (PLDs) describe the knowledge, skills, and practices that students should know and be able to demonstrate at each Performance Level in each content area (ELA/L and mathematics), and at each grade level/course.
In SY 2018, district wide, 81% of students in reading and 74% in math have met or exceeded expectations on PARCC assessment. This is an improvement from SY 2017 for reading and a decline for math. Specifically for elementary grades, 81% of students in reading and 73% of students in math met or exceeded expectations. This is substantially higher than the state average of 37% in reading and 33% in math.
For upper grades, 82% students in reading and 75% in math met or exceeded expectations on PARCC. Similar to elementary grades, these percentages are substantially higher than 37% in reading and 29% in math. The chart below shows student performance levels for reading and math.
Chart 11: PARCC Performance 2017-18: By Subject
PARCC Performance: Reading
Similar trend data are observed across different grade levels in reading. The chart below shows proficiency on PARCC assessment for reading by grade levels. State level proficiency percentages4 for SY 2018 have been added to provide benchmarks and context around the district performance. However, it will be also be meaningful if the district is compared to similar districts in the state reflecting true value added measure.
Chart 12: PARCC Performance 2017-18: Reading by Grade
4 as published on the District Report Card
17
Reading: State Performance Level Percentages
Grade Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
3 21.4 17.8 23.7 33.6 3.4 4 14.1 20.1 27.3 31.0 7.6 5 14.0 21.9 28.5 32.9 2.7 6 12.5 23.4 30.1 29.4 4.7 7 16.5 18.2 25.5 29.1 10.7 8 18.4 19.5 25.6 30.1 6.3
While looking at the average scale scores for each grade level in reading, both schools are doing significantly better than other schools in the state of Illinois. The chart below outlines the average scale scores by grade level for reading.
Chart 13: Average Scale Score 2017-18: Reading by Grade
PARCC Performance: Math
18
Similar trends are observed for math for different grade levels. The charts below encapsulate schools performance as compared to the state. The table for state proficiency percentages for SY 2018 has been added to understand district performance better.
Chart 14: PARCC Performance 2017-18: Math by Grade
Math: State Performance Level Percentages
Grade Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
3 14.5 21.9 25.8 29.5 8.2 4 15.8 25.6 27.2 28.1 3.4 5 16.6 24.7 27.9 26.3 4.5 6 15.6 28.8 28.7 23.3 3.6 7 11.3 26.9 31.1 26.9 3.8 8 24.1 22.7 22.8 26.1 4.4
While looking at the average scale scores for each grade level in math, both schools are doing significantly better than other schools in the state of Illinois. The chart below outlines the average scale scores by grade level for math for SY 2017.
Chart 15: Average Scale Score 2017-18: Math by Grade
19
State Assessment Performance 2017-18: Students with IEPs
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) requires states to develop and submit a State Performance Plan (SPP) to the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) at the U.S. Department of Education. The SPP is designed to evaluate the State's efforts to implement the requirements and purposes of IDEA and describe how the State will improve its implementation. The plan consists of several priority areas with specific indicators defined for each area. Measurable and rigorous targets are defined for each indicator to show progress throughout the life of the SPP.
The State Test Participation Rate is calculated by dividing the number of participants by the Tested Enrollment. At least 95% of students should be tested in ELA and mathematics with at least 10 students. If the state test participation rate is less than 95%, a 95% confidence interval is applied and the student group can meet the 95% target through the confidence interval. The district was at 100% for this indicator.
The state average of ELA proficiency for 2017-18 is 8.9% in reading and 7.9% in math. In SY 2018, students with IEP meeting or exceeding state assessment was 40.4% in reading and 46.8% in math. This was 3% higher than SY 2017 in reading and 4% lower than SY 2017 for math.
Comparable Schools Analysis 2018
Butler school district has performed much higher compared to the comparison schools across the state. The enrollment of these districts varied quite widely compared to district enrollment. The chart below shows the enrollment of the comparable schools.
Chart 16 : Enrollment of Comparison Schools 2018
20
Charts below shows the relative performance of the district compared to these districts on PARCC assessment.
Chart 17: 2018 PARCC ELA Performance
Chart 18: 2018 PARCC Math Performance
21
As can be seen from the charts above, Butler 53 has outperformed almost all the comparable schools in reading and math.
State Designations 2018
The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) provides the opportunity for districts and schools to build on existing strengths and to close academic achievement gaps. ESSA creates the statewide conditions to support districts, schools, and most importantly, students who need additional assistance and resources. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) is beginning its comprehensive implementation of ESSA as required by the federal government.
ISBE has provided each school a SUMMATIVE designation based on a data set consisting of 2018 PARCC, SAT, and DLM-AA proficiency scores, growth (grades 4-8), English language progress to proficiency (grades 1-12), chronic absenteeism (grades 1-12), and ninth grade on track and graduation rates (for high schools only). The definition of designation is as follows.
• Exemplary: A school that has no underperforming student demographic groups at or below the “all students” group of the lowest 5 percent of all Title 1 schools, a graduation rate of greater than 67 percent, and whose performance is in the top 10 percent of schools statewide. Schools that receive an Exemplary School designation may apply to serve in the IL-EMPOWER network of partners.
• Commendable: A school that has no underperforming student demographic groups at or below the “all students” group of the lowest 5 percent of all Title 1 schools, a graduation rate greater than 67 percent, and whose performance is not in the top 10 percent of schools statewide. Schools that receive a Commendable School designation may apply to serve in the IL-EMPOWER network of partners.
• Underperforming: A school in which one or more student demographic groups is performing at or below the “all students” group of the lowest 5 percent of all Title 1 schools. Schools that receive an Underperforming School designation will receive Targeted Support services through IL-EMPOWER.
22
• Lowest Performing: A school that is in the lowest-performing 5 percent of Title I schools in Illinois and any high schools that have a graduation rate of 67 percent or less. Schools that receive a Lowest Performing School designation will receive Comprehensive Support through IL-EMPOWER.
The following table provides a snapshot of the summative designations of both schools in the district.
5Essentials School Effectiveness Surveys: Results 2017-18
Butler SD 53 completed the 5Essentials School Effectiveness Surveys in 2018. Researchers at the University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research used 20 years of evidence to define five essential components of organization and climate related to improving schools. These researchers showed that schools strong on these Essentials are more likely to:
• improve student learning and attendance year after year; • graduate students from high school; • improve student ACT scores; • get students into college; and • retain their teachers.
Each of the Essentials provides a different lens into the organizational and learning conditions at schools in the Butler SD 53 and provides guidance on how each of its schools can organize its work. In fact, schools strong on at least 3 out of 5 Essentials are 10 times more likely to improve student learning. The 5Essentials comprise of 5 specific domains that impact student learning most. They include
1. Ambitious instruction 2. Effective leaders 3. Collaborative teachers 4. Involved families 5. Supportive environment
Each of these essentials is constituted by multiple measures that are assessed on the survey to provide an overall rating of the school. The table below provides the different measures under each domain as measured by the effectiveness survey. District’s overall performance on the survey is outlined next to the table.
23
Chart 16: Effectiveness Measures & District Performance SY 2018
Essential domain
Measures/ Indicators
Ambitious Instruction
- English instruction - Math instruction - Academic press - Quality Of student discussion
Effective Leaders
- Program coherence - Teacher – Principal trust - Teacher influence - Instructional leadership
Collaborative Teachers
- Collaborative practices - Collective responsibility - Quality professional development - School commitment - Teacher-teacher trust
Involved Families
- Teacher-parent trust - Parent involvement - Parent influence on decision
making in schools
Supportive Environment
- Peer Support For Academic Work - Academic Personalism - Safety - Student-Teacher Trust
The consortium has only provided school level results and not at the district level. It will be made available as and when published by the consortium.
Brook Forest Elementary: Performance SY 2018
The result of the survey taken by teachers and parents at Brook Forest elementary indicated that the school was Organized for improvement.
Chart 17: Brook Forest Elementary Performance on 5Essentials
24
The highest performing indicator for elementary school was “Involved Families.” “Collaborative Teachers” was at average implementation. “Effective Leader” showed a rating of average implementation in SY 2018. The chart below outlines essential performance for the elementary school.
Chart 18: Brook Forest Elementary Performance on 5Essentials Measures
Table below outlined specifically measures and sub-measures that the elementary school perform the highest and lowest and the associated improvement.
Chart 19: Brook Forest Elementary Performance on 5Essentials Sub-Measures
25
Butler Junior High: Performance SY 2018
The result of the survey taken by teachers and students at Butler Junior high indicated that the school was Well-Organized for improvement.
Chart 20: Butler Junior High Performance on 5Essentials
The highest performing indicator was “Involved Families,” followed by “Ambitious Instruction”. “Supportive Environment”, “Collaborative Teachers” and “Effective Leaders” rated at More Implementation. The chart below outlines essential performance.
Chart 21: Butler Junior High Performance on 5Essentials Measures
26
Table below outlined specifically measures and sub-measures that the Junior High perform the highest and lowest and the associated improvement.
Chart 22: Butler Junior High Performance on 5Essentials Sub-Measures
27
2017-18 Data Insights & Recommendations
Student Learning and Achievement
PARCC
On average, 76% of students are meeting or exceeding expectations on PARCC assessment. Reading
performance improved from SY 2017 at 81% and math performance declined marginally at 74%. Additionally,
the district performance is significantly higher than state average and evidenced stronger achievement than the
majority of comparable school districts. The 2017-18 results for students with IEPs meeting or exceeding
standards on state assessments was 40% in reading and 47% in math. This was much higher than state average
for 9% and 8% respectively for reading and math.
• Continued revision and augmentation of interventions and response to data in remediation
programming that are provided in addition to the District’s core instructional program will be important
during the 2018-19 school year. Consistent delivery of MTSS interventions at both schools in both
reading and math will be beneficial to addressing identified needs.
• Consistency of personnel is essential to the development of program coherence. One potential reason
for the slight decline in English Language Arts was the significant turnover in the BJH ELA department.
• Teacher teams will investigate ways to provide creative solutions to expand in-class interventions and
academic supports for identified students in Math and ELA. It is important for teachers to continue to
identify the strengths and weakness at the skill or concept level to provide needed supports and
enrichment.
• At this time the District does not have a formal math intervention program, however reading specialists
are employed to provide interventions in English Language Arts. While this is not a planned
expenditure, future considerations should be made to ensure math interventions are available for
students with demonstrated needs.
• Continued revision and augmentation of interventions will be necessary to provide to augment the
District’s special education co-teaching model. This will be essential for ensuring ongoing academic
growth for students with disabilities.
• The District will want to continue to expand its advanced coursework and enrichment opportunities for
all students. It is important to note that the vast majority of our students are on track for select college
entrance opportunities. Other students on the cusp of readiness will continue to receive intensive
support and enrichment. Strengthened classroom interventions will improve their likelihood of college
persistence, educational grit and post college educational opportunities. By providing targeted
28
enrichment to students at and above grade level, the district can improve college success for all
students.
NWEA MAP Attainment
End of year attainment scores for NWEA MAP were more than 95th percentile in reading and math
across grade levels, which evidences distinguished academic achievement.
NWEA MAP Growth
Student growth is moving in the right direction despite the challenge of growth for a very high achieving
student population.
• Students are starting more than 2 grade level above compared to their peers nationally. However,
conditional growth percentile demonstrates a need for further refinement of the instructional strategies
and interventions at both schools.
• On average 69% of students in reading and 60% of students in math sustained their growth and met or
exceeded their national targets, as measured by NWEA’s MAP. Average reading growth success was just
one percentage point from Distinguished growth.
• Conditional growth percentile is one of the most critical metrics for improvement for any school system.
It demonstrates growth for all district’s students compared to their national peers and how they are
performing relative to students with similar attainment levels. Individual student differentiation at the
classroom level will support identified skills acquisition.
• While enrichment and advanced level programming continues to be an area of success for the district,
further expansion is warranted by the number of high achieving students and their needs for
instructional challenge and rigorous programming.
Student Populations
The District observed some fluctuating trends for its students who were at / above 90th percentile. Classroom instruction supported by a strong enrichment program is critical to advancing high performing students.
NWEA research provides information on linkages between NWEA percentile for students and its linkage to ACT/SAT scores and likelihood for college success and persistence, ultimately leading to improved college graduation rate. Approximately, 75th percentile on NWEA links to a high likelihood of 24 on ACT. 44% of students in reading and 20% in math are between 51st percentile (above grade level) and 75th percentile (below college readiness benchmarks). It is a significant number of students that are at or above grade level, and as such on the
29
cusp of better achievement. Students on the cusp of readiness will continue to receive intensive support and enrichment. Strengthened classroom interventions will improve their likelihood of college persistence, educational grit and post college educational opportunities. By providing targeted enrichment to students at and above grade level, the district can improve college success for all students.
• Despite similar attainment levels in reading and math for all grade levels, reading was outperforming math in student growth for all student performance group in the last two years. Math has seen a decline in SY 2018. D53 teachers are completing a yearlong curriculum mapping and course content sequencing and alignment process, which will positively impact mathematical learning.
• The recommendation is to increase academic differentiation and personalized learning opportunities to strengthen and advance skills through on-grade level academic supports. By providing targeted enrichment to students above grade level but below 75th percentile, the district can improve its learning outcomes and better prepare this segment of the student population for continued academic success and exceptional college preparedness.
• Given such high attainment levels for students in the district, it is critical to understand students’ personalized needs and provide focused and targeted pathways for success for ALL students. Teachers’ capacity to provide more personalized learning pathways will be significant in fostering continued growth for all students.
• The district needs to continue its enrichment program and advanced level programming to ensure students’ academic programming matches the advanced and accelerated needs of district students to increase their post-secondary options and to continue its high attainment achievement results.
• Significant achievement and growth increases across all student populations need to be maintained and enhanced through personalized pathways and leveraging 1:1 technology and software opportunities.
• An opportunity exists for continuous analysis of potential barriers in reading and math instruction to further improve student achievement and growth, particularly for children with IEPs.
• Data suggest that the curriculum offerings at Butler 53 are appropriately aligned to meet the needs of students. District teachers should continue to supplement Go Math, Eureka Math, and the advanced programming textbooks used at BJH to match student needs with tailored math content standards for instruction. District teachers should also continue to invest in advancing their instructional skills related to Readers and Writers Workshop to strengthen the language arts skills of students across genres, foster independence in reading, build a literate community, and engage students in conversation and inquiry for elevated comprehension. District teachers across content areas should continue to implement and seek to extend vocabulary instruction across genres and all areas of subject instruction.
5Essentials
Butler SD 53 schools took the 5Essentials Effectiveness Survey in SY 2018. The result of the survey taken by teachers and parents at Brook Forest elementary indicated that the school was Organized for improvement. The result of the survey taken by teachers and students at Butler Junior High indicated that the school was Well-Organized for improvement. The school outperformed similar schools and the state of Illinois on different measures. The highest performing domain was “Involved Families” followed by “Collaborative Teachers” and “amibitious instruction”
30
• The District should continue its community outreach and expand opportunities to involve parents and students in the educational process to develop solutions, expand opportunities, and ensure that stakeholders continue to develop a strong knowledge base for cultivating developmental assets for our children.
• The District should seek incentives to maintain consistency at the administrative and teaching levels to enhance school effectiveness.
31
Appendix 1
Chart 1: Student Growth 2016-17
Chart 2: Student Growth 2016-17: By School & Grade
32
Chart 3: Student Performance At/Below 35th Percentile 2016-17: By Subject & Grade
Chart 4: Student Performance At/Above 90th Percentile 2016-17: By Subject & Grade
33
Chart 5: Status Percentile 2016-17: By Subject & Grade
Chart 6: Growth Percentile 2016-17: By Subject & Grade
34
Chart 7: Reading Data Slices 2016-17
Chart 8: Math Data Slices 2016-17
Chart 9: Reading Goal Strands 2016-17: By Grade
School/ Grade Level
Informational Text Literature Vocabulary Acquisition and
Use
Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17
Brook Forest School 204 214 206 216 204 214
2 188 203 191 203 190 202
3 201 212 200 213 197 212
4 210 217 213 221 210 218
5 217 223 217 225 216 223
School/ Grade Level
Informational Text Literature Vocabulary Acquisition and
Use
Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17
Butler Junior High School 230 233 229 234 230 233
6 225 227 225 229 226 228
7 229 235 230 234 230 234
8 235 238 233 238 235 237
More than 5 points Less than equal to 5 points
35
Chart 10: Math Goal Strands 2016-17: By Grade
Row Labels Number and Operations Measurement and Data
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Geometry Statistics and Probability The Real and Complex
Number Systems
Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Brook Forest School 209 226 209 224 210 224 209 220
2 191 206 191 207 193 208 195 201
3 198 218 202 216 203 217 202 212
4 217 235 216 231 218 229 217 229
5 228 242 225 239 224 238 222 233
Row Labels Number and Operations Measurement and Data
Operations and Algebraic Thinking
Geometry Statistics and Probability The Real and Complex
Number Systems
Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17 Fall 16 Spring 17
Butler Junior High
School 246 254 244 253 244 250 245 254
6 236 245 236 247 234 241 237 246
7 246 256 242 251 244 252 244 253
8 257 263 253 261 254 258 255 263
More than 5 points Less than equal to 5 points
36
