Test Score Data 2011 2013: Harvey Dunn and John Harris Elementary Schools Standardized testing has

s become a routine part of teaching in upper elementary grades. From 2011 to 2013, third, fourth and fifth grade students in the Sioux Falls School District were tested using the Dakota Step to determine academic proficiency in reading and math. Standardized testing can help schools and teachers identify areas of strengths and weaknesses within the curriculum. It can assist educators in pinpointing specific populations of students, experiencing success as well as those needing additional reflection and focus for improvement. This information can then be used during school and grade-level collaboration to guide the decision making processes regarding curriculum and instruction, improving the learning outcomes for all students. With this in mind, I decided to compare the test scores of two elementary schools with similar student populations in Sioux Falls, South Dakota: Harvey Dunn and John Harris. (ELCC 1.2) This process was accomplished using data from the Dakota Step test administered at these schools from 2011-2013, and made available through the South Dakota Department of Education. (2013) The majority of students at both schools are from middle to upper-middle class families. However, it is important to keep in mind that both schools do have students qualifying for free and reduced school lunches, and are considered economically disadvantaged. These students traditionally underperform on standardized tests when compared with their non-disadvantaged peers. Of the students tested, 19.43% of Harvey Dunn and 15.33% of John Harris students were from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In reading, Harvey Dunns economically disadvantaged fifth grade students (yellow) were 100% proficient in reading on the 2012 and 2013 tests. Their math scores, however, dropped 17.58% from 2012 to 2013 with the implementation of the new Investigations math curriculum.

Overall, Harvey Dunns economically disadvantaged students seem to perform at higher levels than those attending John Harris. For example, the average percentage of economically disadvantaged students scoring proficient or advanced in reading, for all grades tested on the 2013 Dakota Step, was 71.52% while at Harvey Dunn this percentage was 86.92%. The comparison of math scores for this subgroup reaches similar conclusions. This is a little surprising considering that, of the total population of students tested at Harvey Dunn, 19.43% were economically disadvantaged. This same group comprised 15.33% of the total tested population at John Harris. Determining the difference in performance would require a more indepth look at the individual students in these subgroups and the specific teaching practices employed at each school to meet their needs. Another group of students deserving particular attention are those with disabilities because, as with economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities often perform at lower levels on standardized tests than their nondisabled peers. In the spring of 2013, Harvey Dunn had 46 disabled students which accounted for 18.62% of the tested population while John Harris had 41 disabled students with a percentage of 13.66%. By focusing on these groups of students, we can use the test data to personalize the curriculum and meet their needs more efficiently and effectively. The results of the data from both schools reveal that, while there are years where this subgroup of students shows achievement levels approaching that of their non-disabled peers, overall, this group continues to struggle to reach academic parity. Again, this is particularly evident in the decreased math achievement for these students at both schools. Harvey Dunns current fifth grade students went from 100% proficient and advanced in 2012 when they were in third grade, to only 66.66% proficient in 2013 as fourth graders. A similar drop was seen among

Harvey Dunns fifth grade students who are now sixth graders in middle school. The resulting overall decrease in math proficiency among both subgroups, economically disadvantaged and students with disabilities, requires a closer look at how curriculum decisions affected learning for these students. It also requires us to take a step back from the test score data in order to adopt a long-term vision of academic success and student learning in general. All elementary schools in the Sioux Falls School District implemented a new math curriculum during the 2012 2013 school year called Investigations. This new curriculum requires students to learn math in ways that allow for deeper conceptual understanding rather than relying on memorized methods for producing correct answers. Instead of memorizing algorithms and formulas, students use place value concepts to break apart numbers, develop their own understandings through trial and error, and explain or represent their understanding in a variety of ways. As teachers began implementing this new curriculum, it became apparent early on in the school year that the students having the most difficult time with this new change were our older students. The reality of this can be seen in the drop in fifth grade math scores from 97.34% proficient or advanced in the spring of 2012 (when they were fourth graders) to only 88.73% proficient or advanced in the spring of 2013. This is an 8.62% decline in proficiency among that group of students. The second largest decline in math achievement can be seen in the fourth grade proficiency scores. Prior to implementing the Investigations curriculum, this group scored 95.84% proficient or advanced in 2012 when they were in third grade. After implementing Investigations, this group was only 88.31% proficient or advanced. This is a drop of 7.53%. What is even more alarming is the significant decrease in math scores for our fourth grade students with disabilities. Changing the math curriculum seems to have affected them the

most. In 2012, as third graders, this group was 100% proficient on the Dakota Step. In 2013, this group was only 66.66% proficient a drop of 33.34%. I was surprised to learn that the third grade students from 2013 scored higher than our fourth grade students in math proficiency. With my experience in having taught both groups of students, it was very apparent from one year to the next that these classes had very different learning needs. Not surprisingly, the number of students from economically disadvantaged third grade students in 2013 is almost double compared to the fourth grade students that year. I would have guessed that the fourth grade math scores would have been higher than the third grade scores based on classroom performance. However, I believe the difference can be accounted for by the fact that our second grade teachers were teaching many Investigations concepts even before the adoption of the curriculum and thus our 2013 third graders came to third grade better prepared for the curriculum change in math. This would effectively have given them two more years of access to higher level, best-practice mathematical teaching than was available to our fourth grade students. This data points to a need for intervention in math for our current fifth grade students, particularly those with disabilities. (ELCC 1.2) In the 2013 test cycle, 11.69% of our current fifth grade students were non-proficient. Our goal should be to decrease the amount of non-proficient students in this class by half in the 2014 test cycle. Some people might view this as an overly aggressive goal. The federal government, in fact, only requires schools to decrease their non-proficient population by half over the course of six year. I believe this goal is possible, however, based on what I know about that group of students, the teachers, and the AVMR math recovery program. Our group of fifth grade students was one of the most dedicated groups of learners I have

ever seen. They loved learning, and many students in that group would routinely go above and beyond what was asked of them in their projects and classwork. Additionally our fifth grade teachers believe strongly in the quality of the Investigations curriculum and have all been trained in how to use the AVMR math recovery program. According to Steedly, Dragoo, Arafeh, and Luke (2008), there have been five meta-analyses conducted regarding math instruction for students with disabilities. These studies point to four instructional approaches that seem to help students with disabilities improve their mathematical understanding and include: systematic and explicit instruction, self-instruction, peer tutoring, and visual representation. (Steedly et al., 2008) The AVMR math recovery model is based on systematic and explicit instruction that allows students to fill in the missing pieces in their understanding of basic, but fundamental, math concepts. As such, it will likely be effective when implemented by trained professionals with a targeted goal. We can accomplish this goal by adopting the following plan: identify, assess, intervene, assess. (EDPCM) By looking at individual student test scores, we can identify those students who were non-proficient as fourth graders. Teachers can further identify students in need of assistance based on classroom observations and formative assessments. (ELCC 1.2) Following the identification process, teachers should use the AVMR assessments to pinpoint specific gaps in students conceptual understandings of various mathematical concepts. Teachers can then use the AVMR assessment results to form intervention groups based on student needs. In each group, the teacher should identify a basic misunderstanding or lack of knowledge to be addressed. I would encourage teachers to meet with their intervention groups daily (EDPCM) for four weeks, using AVMR games and activities to strengthen the identified goal for each group.

After four weeks of intervention, teachers should reassess students to determine their current levels of understanding, identify areas where continued growth is needed, and set new intervention goals. This process would repeat itself throughout the year. I would also encourage our fifth grade teachers to develop and train parent volunteers who are willing to work with small groups. AVMR math recovery games and skills are usually short, and can be completed with a group in ten to fifteen minutes. They are not overly complicated and are thus ideal for volunteers, which would allow more intervention groups to meet on a daily basis. It is important to note, that as leaders in education, test data is only one source of data and only one form of student success. Student success is multi-faceted and complex. We can use this test data as we strive to develop a viable curriculum that meets students individual needs. In this study, the data illuminates the need to shore up mathematical understanding in our upper elementary students as the curriculum changes from one that was more traditional, involving memorization to find right answers, to a more modern curriculum emphasizing constructivist ideas in developing conceptual understanding. At Harvey Dunn, the means to meet this need can be found in our trained, dedicated professionals and their ability to effectively implement intervention strategies to target specific gaps in understanding. As always, I believe we will work toward this goal without losing sight of the bigger picture that allows us to address all facets of student success.

References

South Dakota Department of Education (2013). Report Card - South Dakota Department of Education. Retrieved September 2013, from http://doe.sd.gov/reportcard/ Steedly, K., Dragoo, K., Arafeh, S., & Luke, S. (2008). Effective mathematics instruction. Evidence for Education, 3(1), 1-11. Retrieved from http://nichcy.org/wpcontent/uploads/docs/eemath.pdf