Educational Services reports on state test data for local schools

The Educational Services Department presented district-wide California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASPP) data during the Mariposa County Unified School District school board meeting on Nov. 14.

The data that has been released is for the 2023-2024 school year for grades 3rd through 8th and 11th, the beginning-of-the-year data from the Acadience Reading assessment for grades kindergarten through 5th and the Language Arts and Math assessment data from the Edmentum assessment for grades 2nd through 8th.

“Tonight I’m able to report on our state CAASPP data,” said Lydia Lower, Assistant Superintendent of Educational Services.

Lower explained the assessment for the data has been released but the dashboard has not just yet.

“The dashboard goes over chronic absenteeism, graduation rate and it also breaks down our test scores into colors and shows us the point differences from last year,” Lower said.

“I’ll be able to bring that to you at the next board meeting,” as the state’s deadline to release the information is Dec. 1.

At a glance

The following percentages identify the percentage of students who have met or exceeded standard. This percentage does not indicate students who are at grade level.

• ELA Grades 3-8 and 11th
2020/21: 41.8 percent
2021/22: 38.6 percent
2022/23: 32.3 percent
2023/24: 35 percent
Goal: 34 percent
• Math Grades 3-8 and 11th
2020/21: 27.1 percent
2021/22: 26.7 percent
2022/23: 25.3 percent
2023/24: 27 percent
Goal: 27 percent
• Science Grades 3-8 and 11-12
2020/21: 23.3 percent
2021/22: 26 percent
2022/23: 26.6 percent
2023/24: 27 percent
Goal: 28.3 percent

“This tracks from the first year we were back post Covid, to now,” Lower explained.

“I’m happy to say this is the first year we’ve seen an increase in our test scores since Covid.”

The numbers show an increase in ELA percentage from 32.3 percent in 2022/23 to 35 percent in 2023/24.

There was also an increase in math scores from 25.3 percent in 2022/23 to 27 percent in 2023/24.

Science also showed improvement from 26.6 percent in 2022/23 to 27 percent in 2023/24.

“It’s important to note these percentages identify the percentage of students who have met or exceeded standard,” said Lower.

“This percentage does not represent the students at grade level.”

Misconceptions

The State Board of Education has been working on clarifying the SBAC and CAASPP assessments.

These are some of the points the board has been seeing be misconstrued across counties in California.

“The big misconception they’re seeing is that we’re equating ‘at standard’, ‘exceeded standard’ and ‘met standard’ with grade level and in this assessment that’s not 100 percent accurate,” explained Lower.

“On the state assessment, it ranks students one through four.”

Level 4: Students consistently demonstrate advanced grade-level knowledge and skills with deep understanding and a full range of complexity.

Level 3: Students consistently demonstrate proficient grade-level knowledge and skills with a broad range of complexity.

Level 2: Students demonstrate foundational grade-level knowledge and skills with a limited range of complexity.

Level 1: Students do not consistently demonstrate grade-level knowledge and skills.

They’re considering level one not at grade level. Levels two through four, all the students are working and performing at grade level standards but at varying degrees of consistency and complexity Lower explained.

“The reason this clarification is important is it shifts our focus.”

For example, for ELA for the 2023/24 school year, 35 percent is shown.

“What this means is that 35 percent of our students are interacting with grade level standards at a level three and level four, with consistency and complexity,” Lower said.

“We want that 35 percent to be 100 percent with all of our students to be able to look at grade level standards with consistency and complexity.”

Thirty-five percent does not mean that 35 percent of students are at grade level.

When factoring in levels two, three and four, that looks like 60 percent of students are functioning at grade level.

“One of the things the state board stressed is that level two is college bound,” Lower said.

“A lot of our level two kids end up in college.”

Lower went on to explain that it’s easy to assume 60 percent of the students are grade level and that’s better than 35 percent.

But looking at the data in this way also shows that 40 percent of students are functioning at level one.

“All of the sudden that shifts our focus as to what we need to be working toward in terms of functionality,” Lower said.

“Two things can be true; we can want our students to all be at 100 percent but we can see the difference between what those two representations look like.”

Looking at three-year data including levels two through four, “this is what our representation is of students who based on this one assessment, we’re seeing that 60 percent of our students are scoring within what’s normal considered for that grade level,” explained Lower.

Looking at math, 27 percent of students are levels three and four.

When looking at grade level, “this shows us that 55 percent of our students are functioning at grade level,” Lower said.

“It’s better than 27 percent, but this also indicates we have a large percentage of students at level one.”

Looking at the information in this way is important because that helps determine whether the issue is with instruction or if intervention is needed.

“Teachers in the room know that if only 50 percent of your kids are getting it, you don’t send 50 percent for intervention, you focus on the core instruction,” Lower said.

When it comes to the California Science Test (CAST), “this is really room to celebrate,” Lower continued.

Looking at levels three and four with a high level of difficulty, it’s only 27 percent.

Looking at levels two through four, it’s 83 percent.

“What that shows is that for science we need to be focusing more on intervention because we don’t have as many students in that level one group,” Lower explained during the board meeting.

What’s happening now

“A lot of next steps involve really digging into the data,” Lower said.

The recently added parsec system is assisting in going deeper into assessment scores and providing information as to what is happening in alike districts.

• Ensuring time and space for data disaggregation and planning.

“This is where we’re getting teachers together,” Lower said.

Teachers go together during the month of September and there is a professional development day for teachers coming up in March.

• Communities of practice

“Some really exciting work is already coming out of this in terms of ideas and strategies that these teacher work groups have around improvements.”

• Focus standards and PLC discussions

“This is happening with our lead teachers,” with a meeting coming up in early December.

• Small group data tracking

This takes place by looking at specific groups of students and tracking their individual progress.

“It’s good to look at the whole picture but it’s also important to look at the individual student experience,” said Lower.

• Math curriculum conversations

Math teachers and staff from Educational Services are planning to attend a meeting regarding the new math framework for better understanding and practice.

Board chair Jenni Kiser thanked Lower for her presentation and inquired about setting up a time to meet to go over some questions at a later time to which Lower agreed.

“It’s just important to look at things both ways,” Lower said.

Kiser asked if we are “looking at our goals in terms of levels now?”

“Yes, the parsec is helping us look at not only what level kids are at, but how far away from the next level they are,” Lower said.

“We can support teachers in setting high, but attainable goals.”

Kiser asked if the data has been compared to other similar schools now that the data is present.

“Yes, it’s really fascinating,” Lower said to the question.

“You can really drill it down to not only work with alike school districts in the big picture but you can work with school districts who are making changes on a smaller scale.”

Kim Monson spoke during public comment about looking at the data “in another way that I thought was kind of important.”

Monson referenced the charts, pointing out that the class of 2032 had a very visual decline at certain points and may need some extra help in specific areas as they progress through school.

Monson referenced the ups and downs on the charts and what may have been the cause.

Lower had previously mentioned “a new math curriculum” had been implemented during that time and that could be a factor.

Kiser thanked Monson for her comment.

To see the charts in entirety, visit go.boarddocs.com/ca/mcusd/Board.nsf/files/DATRP96ED87B/$file/Nov%20Board%20Meeting% 20CAASPP%2023_ 24%20Data%20Presentation%20(1).pdf