I am pleased to present to you this annual report on student progress for the 2023-2024 academic year. This report should not be confused with the Iowa School Performance Profile, which will be announced later on this fall. The data included in this report relies heavily on the Iowa Statewide Assessment of Student Progress, or ISASP, which is administered annually to students in grades 3-11 each spring. The battery includes tests in Math, Reading, Language/Writing, and Science. Students in the aforementioned grade levels are administered single tests in each of the content areas described above with the average student taking between 60 and 75 minutes to complete each test.
These tests have been designed and developed by Iowa Testing Programs at the University of Iowa and are aligned with the Iowa Core Academic Standards. The theory holds that, if classroom instruction is aligned to these standards in both content and rigor, students should be well prepared for the administration of the test. At the same time though, it is important for the consumer of this report to understand that this is one test, given on one day. This is a singular data point among many that are collected throughout the course of the school year. As such, it would not be reasonable to use this instrument to definitively conclude the overall effectiveness of the academic program. There are many factors that may impact a students' performance, which is why it is important to triangulate the results of this report with other assessments that are administered throughout the course of the school year. In our analysis, we try to answer the question why; and look for patterns across broad spectrums of students to reach conclusions. For example if a particular subset of questions garners an incorrect response over multiple years, it may suggest a misalignment of instruction, or perhaps that particular test item had not been introduced at the time the test was administered.
This report considers our results and compares them to a statewide benchmark. In most cases, as this report illustrates, students in the Hudson Community School District perform above this statewide benchmark. Additionally, the data is disaggregated by subgroup. However, unless the sample size is greater than 40 students, it is not included. We do this to prevent the identification of students who may belong to a particular subgroup. This is why you will notice the primary subgroups by grade level are male/female. Where proficiency by attendance center is discussed beginning on page 8, this is done in an effort to provide sample sizes large enough to illustrate the differences in our low SES group and those students receiving specially designed instruction, or special education. Our low SES group is defined as those who are on free and reduced lunches. When one hears educational professionals or the Iowa Department of Education discuss an achievement gap, this is precisely what we are referring to. For example, in grades 3-6, students who do not belong to the low SES or special education subgroups have a proficiency rates of 89.25%, whereas those in the low SES have a 61.11% proficiency and those in special programs have a 33.33% proficiency. There is ample scholarly research hypothesizing the reasons for these results, however the solutions to close that gap must include a community effort that includes a strong partnership between all stakeholders.
As you evaluate the contents of this report, you will notice that we use the terms 'proficiency' and 'growth' throughout. A student who is proficient indicates they have adequate knowledge, skills and abilities that meet the requirements for the grade level which they have been tested. Growth on the other hand, is a three digit number that is best contextualized by evaluating it over time. For example on page 3 of the report, you can see not only how a particular grade level performed on a test, but you can measure that number against the three digit number that represents the floor of proficiency and see how that cohort group performs over time. At the same time, one can evaluate how a particular grade level performs over multiple years and understand how the strength of instruction compares against multiple grade levels of students.
Finally, page 9 of the report provides us with outcomes for students following high school, or their postsecondary success. A key indicator of this can be found in the table on page 9. The top row indicates the percentage of graduates who intend to pursue postsecondary training or education. You will note that 95.6% of the Class of 2020 indicated that intent. Of that, 74.5% did in fact enroll within one year, with 70.2% persisting a second year. The table at bottom ranks postsecondary success and indicates that the district exceeds the same benchmark in all areas with the exception of postsecondary or advanced coursework. Hudson was at 73.33 compared to a statewide mark of 75.82. This is one of the reasons the district has been focused on broadening course offerings, particularly those designed to prepare students for life after high school.
The results contained in this report are most useful when viewed holistically with other assessment tools and results used by the school district. Further, they should not be used to determine the outcomes of any individual student. If you have questions about your child's performance on the ISASP or any other academic assessment, please contact the building principal.
No comments:
Post a Comment