wvcsd presentation handouts

cwra & results overview

Warwick Valley Central School District

Monday, March 12, 2012 | Warwick, NY

“Bad…”

We ask our students,

quite simply, to count fish.

The need for adifferent assessment

Institutions are equipped toimprove higher-order skills

when they connectteaching, learning, and assessment

through authentic,performance-based practices.

(a) William Shakespeare(b) John Updike

(c) Ernest Hemingway(d) None of the above

Rewards content regurgitationFails to gauge transferability

Contentknowledge

Contentskills

Generalknowledge

Generalskills

Contentknowledge

Contentknowledge

Contentskills

Generalknowledge

Generalskills

The provision of transferrable skills is

as important as the provision of content.

The top ten in-demand jobs in 2010 did not exist in 2004. We are

currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist, using

technologies that have not yet been invented in order to solve

problems that we don’t even know are problems yet.

Proportion of employers who say colleges should place MORE emphasis than they do on selected

learning outcomes

•The ability to effectively communicate orally and in writing

•Critical thinking and analytic reasoning skills

•The ability to apply knowledge and skills to real-world settings

•The ability to analyze and solve complex problems

89%

81%

79%

75%

AAC&U | 2008 | aacu.org/leap/public_opinion_research.cfm

Academically adriftLimited learning on college campuses

Okay, butWhat is the [cwra]?

small sample

quantitative reasoning

appropriate comparison

group

correlation vs. causation

incorrect (improper?) use of data

ability to filter

metrics

moving beyondassessment and

accountability

64% 37% 54% 46% 51% 50% 61% 40%

+32% +34% +34% +30%

aligning teaching,learning &

assessment:collaboration

collegiatelearningassessment.org/contact

aligning teaching,learning &

assessment:faculty

development

What is authentic assessment?

How does effective teaching support that (and vice versa)?

What are the higher-order skills we value? Why?

How are those skills demonstrated in student responses?

The provision of transferrable skills is

as important as the provision of content.

jessalynn james212.217.0718

[email protected]

chris jackson212.217.0845

[email protected]

@cla_beatcollegiatelearningassessment.org/

cwrapresentations

Warwick Valley High SchoolFall 2011 CWRA Results

Jessalynn JamesReporting Coordinator

College and Work Readiness Assessment [cwra]

10468689604194309

75th Percentile Score

25th Percentile Score

Mean Score

Decile Rank

Mean Score

Decile RankCount

CWRASLE

Warwick Valley High School Freshmen, Fall 2011

24 or higher1132 or higher 10

231094 to 1131 9

221079 to 10938

211042 to 10787

211016 to 10416

20990 to 1015 5

19951 to 989 4

17 to 18884 to 950 3

16833 to 883 2

15 or lower832 or lower 1

SLE Score RangeCWRA Score RangeDecile

Decile Ranges for CWRA Schools Testing Freshmen, Fall 2011

10828949952081All CWRA High Schools

104686896019309Warwick Valley

CWRA 75th Percentile

CWRA 25th Percentile

CWRA Mean Score

SLE Mean ScoreCount

Performance of Warwick Valley Freshmen Compared to Freshmen at All CWRA Schools

1002101Graduate or Professional Degree94183Bachelor’s Degree 95685Some College 90338High School 9152Less than High School

0.201** Parent Education 9588Decline to State90131Other 973226White, Non-Hispanic 92127Hispanic 94912Black, Non-Hispanic

12012Asian / Pacific Islander 8793American Indian /Alaska Native

-0.029 Race / Ethnicity 8569Other963300English

0.128* Primary Language 10182Decline to State970164Female 948143Male

0.081Gender

CorrelationMean CWRA Score

Number of StudentsDemographic Characteristic

Freshman Scores by Demographics, Fall 2011

Subscores for Warwick Valley Freshmen, Fall 2011

Analytic Reasoning and Evaluation

Interpreting, analyzing, and evaluatingthe quality of information. This entailsidentifying information that is relevant toa problem, highlighting connected andconflicting information, detecting flaws inlogic and questionable assumptions, andexplaining why information is credible,unreliable, or limited.

10

41 40

8

0 0

010

2030

4050

60

1 2 3 4 5 6

2.72.5Average Subscore

All High Schools

Warwick Valley High School

4

5

6

1

2

3

•Identifies a few facts or ideas that support or refute all major arguments (or salient features of all objects to be classified) presented in the Document Library.•Briefly demonstrates accurate understanding of important Document Library content, but disregards some information.•Makes very few accurate claims about the quality of information.

•Identifies several facts or ideas that support or refute all major arguments (or salient features of all objects to be classified) presented in the Document Library.•Demonstrates accurate understanding of much of the Document Library content.•Makes a few accurate claims about the quality of information.

•Identifies most facts or ideas that support or refute all major arguments (or salient features of all objects to be classified) presented in the Document Library. Provides analysis that goes beyond the obvious.•Demonstrates accurate understanding of a large body of information from the Document Library.•Makes several accurate claims about the quality of information.

Subscores: Analytic Reasoning and Evaluation

•Does not identify facts or ideas that support or refute arguments (or salient features of all objects to be classified) presented in the Document Library or provides no evidence of analysis.•Disregards or severely misinterprets important information.•Does not make claims about the quality of evidence and bases response on unreliable information.

•Identifies very few facts or ideas that support or refute arguments (or salient features of all objects to be classified) presented in the Document Library.•Disregards or misinterprets much of the Document Library. May restate information “as is.”•Does not make claims about the quality of information and presents some unreliable information as credible.

•Identifies a few facts or ideas that support or refute several arguments (or salient features of all objects to be classified) presented in the Document Library.•Disregards important information or makes minor misinterpretations of information. May restate information “as is.”•Rarely, if ever, makes claims about the quality of information and may present some unreliable evidence as credible.


Writing Effectiveness

Constructing organized and logically cohesive arguments. Strengthening the writer’s position by providing elaboration on facts or ideas (e.g., explaining how evidence bears on the problem, providing examples, and emphasizing especially convincing evidence).

13

38 40

81 0

010

2030

4050

60

1 2 3 4 5 6


All High Schools


4

5

6

1

2

3

•Organizes response in a way that makes the writer’s arguments and logic of those arguments apparent but not obvious.•Provides valid elaboration on facts or ideas several times and cites sources of information.

•Organizes response in a logically cohesive way that makes it fairly easy to follow the writer’s arguments.•Provides valid elaboration on facts or ideas related to each argument and cites sources of information.

•Organizes response in a logically cohesive way that makes it very easy to follow the writer’s arguments.•Provides valid and comprehensive elaboration on facts or ideas related to each argument and clearly cites sources of information.

Subscores: Writing Effectiveness

•Does not develop convincing arguments. Writing may be disorganized and confusing.•Does not provide elaboration on facts or ideas.

•Provides limited, invalid, overstated, or very unclear arguments. May present information in a disorganized fashion or undermine own points.•Any elaboration on facts or ideas tends to be vague, irrelevant,inaccurate, or unreliable (e.g., based entirely on writer’s opinion). Sources of information are often unclear.

•Provides limited or somewhat unclear arguments. Presents relevant information in each response, but that information is not woven into arguments.•Provides elaboration on facts or ideas a few times, some of which is valid. Sources of information are sometimes unclear.


Writing Mechanics

Facility with the conventions of standard written English (agreement, tense, capitalization, punctuation, and spelling) and control of the English language, including syntax (sentence structure) and diction (word choice and usage).9

25

48

17

1 0

010

2030

4050

60

1 2 3 4 5 6


All High Schools


4

5

6

1

2

3

•Demonstrates good control of grammatical conventions with few errors.•Writes well-constructed sentences with some varied structure and length.•Uses vocabulary that clearly communicates ideas but lacks variety.

•Demonstrates very good control of grammatical conventions.•Consistently writes well-constructed sentences with varied structure and length.•Uses varied and sometimes advanced vocabulary that effectively communicates ideas.

•Demonstrates outstanding control of grammatical conventions.•Consistently writes well-constructed, complex sentences with varied structure and length.•Displays adept use of vocabulary that is precise, advanced, and varied.

Subscores: Writing Mechanics

•Demonstrates minimal control of grammatical conventions with many errors that make the response difficult to read or providesinsufficient evidence to judge.•Writes sentences that are repetitive or incomplete, and some aredifficult to understand.•Uses simple vocabulary, and some vocabulary is used inaccuratelyor in a way that makes meaning unclear.

•Demonstrates poor control of grammatical conventions with frequent minor errors and some distracting errors.•Consistently writes sentences with similar structure and length,and some may be difficult to understand.•Uses simple vocabulary, and some vocabulary may be used inaccurately or in a way that makes meaning unclear.

•Demonstrates fair control of grammatical conventions with frequent minor errors.•Writes sentences that read naturally but tend to have similar structure and length.•Uses vocabulary that communicates ideas adequately but lacks variety.


Problem Solving

Considering and weighing information from discrete sources to make decisions (draw a conclusion and/or propose a course of action) that logically follow from valid arguments, evidence, and examples. Considering the implications of decisions and suggesting additional research when appropriate.

12

50

33

60 0

010

2030

4050

60

1 2 3 4 5 6


All High Schools


4

5

6

1

2

3

•Provides a decision and credible evidence to back it up. Possibly does not account for credible, contradictory evidence. May attempt to discount alternatives.When applicable:•Proposes a course of action that follows logically from the conclusion. May briefly consider implications.•Recognizes the need for additional research. Suggests research that would address an unanswered question.

•Provides a decision and a solid rationale based largely on credible evidence from multiple sources and discounts alternatives.When applicable:•Proposes a course of action that follows logically from the conclusion. May consider implications.•Recognizes the need for additional research. Suggests research that would address some unanswered questions.

•Provides a decision and a solid rationale based on credible evidence from a variety of sources. Weighs other options, but presents the decision as best given the available evidence.When applicable:•Proposes a course of action that follows logically from the conclusion. Considers implications.•Recognizes the need for additional research. Recommends specific research that would address most unanswered questions.

Subscores: Problem Solving

•Provides no clear decision or no valid rationale for the decision.When applicable:•Does not propose a course of action that follows logically from the conclusion.•Does not recognize the need for additional research or does not suggest research that would address unanswered questions.

•Provides or implies a decision, but very little rationale is provided or it is based heavily on unreliable evidence.When applicable:•Briefly proposes a course of action, but some aspects do not follow logically from the conclusion.•May recognize the need for additional research. Any suggested research is vague or would not adequately address unanswered questions.

•Provides or implies a decision and some reason to favor it, but the rationale may be contradicted by unaccounted for evidence.When applicable:•Briefly proposes a course of action, but some aspects may not follow logically from the conclusion.•May recognize the need for additional research. Any suggested research tends to be vague or would not adequately address unanswered questions.

Warwick Valley High School’s CWRA Performance Fall 2010 – Spring 2011

1057821936419594

75th Percentile

Score

25th Percentile

ScoreMean ScoreDecile

RankMean ScoreDecile Rank

Numberof

Freshmen

Freshmen: CWRAFreshmen: SLE

127299711277237123

75th Percentile

Score

25th Percentile

ScoreMean ScoreDecile

RankMean Score

Decile Rank

Numberof

Seniors

Seniors: CWRASeniors: SLE

College Readiness Estimate, Spring 2011

Near680.517711251099111980Warwick Valley High School

Performance Level

Adjusted Percentile

RankDeviation

Score

Unadjusted Percentile

Rank

Observed Mean CWRA

Score

Expected Mean CWRA

Score

Mean EAA Score

Student Count

Note: This table only includes Warwick Valley seniors with EAA (SAT or ACT) scores who completed the CWRA.

10481115982188CLA Colleges

Testing Freshmen

MeanCWRA Score

75th Percentile CWRA Score

25th Percentile CWRA Score

Number of Colleges

Comparisons to Seniors at Other CWRA High Schools, Spring 2011

70.45711271096723123Warwick Valley High School

Adjusted Decile Rank

Deviation Score

Unadjusted Decile Rank

Observed Mean CWRA

Score

Expected Mean CWRA

ScoreSLE Decile

RankMean SLE

ScoreStudent Count

Note: This table includes all Warwick Valley seniors with SLE scores who completed the CWRA.

1.38 or higher

0.78 to 1.37

0.50 to 0.77

0.23 to 0.49

-0.04 to 0.22

-0.33 to -0.05

-0.47 to -0.34

-0.66 to -0.48

-1.08 to -0.67

-1.09 or lower

DeviationScore Range

27 or higher1208 or higher10

261170 to 12079

24 to 251150 to 11698

231120 to 11497

221075 to 11196

211032 to 1074 5

201009 to 10314

19971 to 1008 3

17 to 18898 to 970 2

16 or lower897 or lower 1

SLEScore Range

CWRAScore RangeDecile

Growth Estimates, Spring 2011

152936105782194Your Freshmen

1.2619711271272997123Your Seniors

Effect Size v. Freshmen

Standard Deviation

Mean CWRA Score75th Percentile25th PercentileStudent Count


19298111138363267All Freshmen

0.76193105311928968030All Seniors

Effect Size v. Freshmen

Standard Deviation

Mean CWRA Score75th Percentile25th PercentileStudent Count

Growth Estimates, Spring 2011


CWRA Performance vs. Entering Academic Ability

Subscores, Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: Analytic Reasoning and Evaluation

Freshmen Seniors


All High Schools



All High Schools


16

48

31

50 0

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

7

20

37

27

9

1

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

Subscores, Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: Writing Effectiveness

Freshmen Seniors


All High Schools



All High Schools


20

3731

12

0 0

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

4

18

32 33

11

2

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

Subscores, Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: Writing Mechanics

Freshmen Seniors


All High Schools



All High Schools


1823

43

16

0 0

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

5

14

32

40

10

0

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

Subscores, Fall 2010 – Spring 2011: Problem Solving

Freshmen Seniors


All High Schools



All High Schools


14

28

10

0 0

49

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

4

17

40

32

62

010

2030

4050

1 2 3 4 5 6

11519864126Bachelor’s Degree 11669293933Graduate or Professional Degree

10539092221Some College 11879142111High School

—84303Less than High School 0.189* 0.102Parent Education

—82803Decline to State1120861610Other 114795010361White, Non-Hispanic 975959614Hispanic 98686474Black, Non-Hispanic

1061110911Asian / Pacific Islander —93301American Indian /Alaska Native

0.206*-0.130Race / Ethnicity 115787712Other112793712292English

-0.014 0.058Primary Language

1007—20Decline to State11459696246Female 11139045948Male

0.0470.216*Gender SeniorsFreshmenSeniorsFreshmenSeniorsFreshmenDemographic Characteristic

CorrelationMean CWRA ScoreNumber of Students

Scores by Demographics, Freshmen & Seniors 2010-11

wvcsd presentation handouts

Documents

percentile cwra

cwra schools1002101graduate

cwra schools testing

provision of content

authentic assessment

orgcontactc teaching

realworld settingsthe

effective teaching support