Students took three sessions of NWEA testing, earlier in the week in Mathematics, Reading, and Language Usage. These were is the same testing we administered, last year, but since last year was our first year to subscribe to NWEA, we were just establishing some baselines; in other words, we didn't know what we were doing or how the test operated. When dissecting the results, here is what I found for our class (based on spring scores for each year):
MATH Last year: 40% were predicted to achieve proficient This year: 55% are predicted to achieve proficient | READING Last year: 32% were predicted to achieve proficient This year: 67% are predicted to achieve proficient |
Last year: 44% were predicted to achieve proficient
This year: 60% are predicted to achieve proficient
The state testing (MAP) scores for last spring were slightly different from the predictions, but reasonably close. Some students, predicted to score proficient, last year, did not perform as predicted, while others who made lower scores on the NWEA test snuck onto the proficient list. Those "sneaky" students scored as low as 198 on the NWEA. Not everyone at that level made it, but some did.
For this reason, with the understanding that anyone between 198 and 204 is on "the line", I hope to positively affect those students in particular (while not neglecting others). If all of those falling between these scores (plus all the students who scored higher in the first place) make it onto the proficient list on the MAP, our statistics could look something like this:
MATH Last year: 28% scored proficient or above This year: 80% could score proficient or above | READING* Last year: 44% scored proficient or above This year: 81% could score proficient or above |
Last year: 44% scored proficient or above
80% could score proficient or above
The actual contrast in years might not be as stark as this, but there is definitely a possibility. We are confident that our class will outscore the first year we gave the NWEA test - not a reflection on the students in the previous class, but more a statement about it being a baseline year with a learning curve for the students and the teacher. There is also something to be said about the technology (iPads) working more efficiently this year than last. We are definitely hopeful that next year can be even higher.