Disaggregated Data Project
PLC: Katelyn Mielke, Katherine Rodgers,
Amy Walker, and Harper Parkey
Schools: Trace Crossings Elementary School
and Oliver Elementary School
Grade Level: 4th Grade
Reading and Math
2
2
Table of Contents
Page Number1. Data From Trace Crossings Elementary / 3-21
2. Data From Oliver Elementary / 22-38
3. Overall Data Charts / 39-41
4. Data Analysis and Action Plan For Trace Crossings Elementary / 42-46
5. Data Analysis and Action Plan For Oliver Elementary / 47-50
6. Parent Letter for Trace Crossings Elementary / 51-52
7. Parent Letter for Oliver Elementary / 53-54
Disaggregated Data From:
Trace Crossings Elementary School
Reading and Math Scores
2011-2012
2012-2013
Gender Differences in Reading
2
2011-2012
· Male = 52.88%
· Female = 47.12%
2012-2013
· Male = 47.66%
· Female = 52.34%
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll School
2011-2012 / 0.96 / 13.46 / 37.50 / 48.08
Male
2011-2012 / 1.82 / 16.36 / 41.82 / 40.00
Female
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 10.20 / 32.65 / 57.14
All School
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.48 / 32.71 / 59.81
Male
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.84 / 29.41 / 62.75
Female
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.14 / 35.71 / 57.14
From 2011 to 2012, reading scores increased across the board and more students were considered proficient (level III or IV). However, since there are no significant differences between male and female test scores, we cannot conclude that there are major gender differences in reading performance.
Gender Differences in Math
2
2011-2012
· Male = 52.88%
· Female = 47.12%
2012-2013
· Male = 47.66%
· Female = 52.34%
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll School
2011-2012 / 3.81 / 41.90 / 26.67 / 27.62
Male
2011-2012 / 5.36 / 48.21 / 16.07 / 30.36
Female
2011-2012 / 2.04 / 34.69 / 38.78 / 24.49
All School
2012-2013 / 2.80 / 10.28 / 31.78 / 55.14
Male
2012-2013 / 3.92 / 7.84 / 29.41 / 58.82
Female
2012-2013 / 1.79 / 12.50 / 33.93 / 51.79
For both males and females, the scores increased from 2011 to 2012. More students scored a level III or IV, which considers them proficient. While more males were level IV (above average), more females were level III (average), so it is not completely clear if one gender performs significantly better than the other in terms of math performance.
Ethnicity Differences in Reading
2
2011-2012
· Black Students = 36.54%
· Hispanic Students = 9.62%
· White Students = 46.15%
· Other = 7.69% (Not a large enough amount of data to sub categorize and report)
2012-2013
· Black Students = 30.84%
· Hispanic Students = 16.82%
· White Students = 45.79
· Other = 6.55% (Not a large enough amount of data to sub categorize and report)
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll Students 2011-2012 / 0.96 / 13.46 / 37.50 / 48.08
Black Students
2011-2012 / 2.63 / 23.68 / 50.00 / 23.68
Hispanic Students
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 30.00 / 50.00 / 20.00
White Students
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 2.08 / 27.08 / 70.83
All Students
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.48 / 32.71 / 59.81
Black Students 2012-2013 / 0.00 / 12.12 / 45.45 / 42.42
Hispanic Students
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 16.67 / 61.11 / 22.22
White Students 2012-2013 / 0.00 / 2.04 / 14.29 / 83.67
In both 2011 and 2012, the white students had significantly more students scoring level IV in reading compared to Hispanic and Black students. However, it is also important to note that the Hispanic and Black students’ scores increased from 2011 to 2012. In 2012, more Hispanic and Black students scored level III or IV, which considers them proficient, so that shows improvement compared to 2011 data. While not as many Hispanic and Black students scored level IV, many did score level III, which still is on grade level. Overall though, almost all white students were level IV, which considers them above average, and does seem to indicate that white students performed better compared to Hispanic and Black students for reading.
Ethnicity Differences in Math
2
2011-2012
· Black Students = 36.54%
· Hispanic Students = 9.62%
· White Students = 46.15%
· Other = 7.69% (Not a large enough amount of data to sub categorize and report)
2012-2013
· Black Students = 30.84%
· Hispanic Students = 16.82%
· White Students = 45.79
· Other = 6.55% (Not a large enough amount of data to sub categorize and report)
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll Students 2011-2012 / 3.81 / 41.90 / 26.67 / 27.62
Black Students
2011-2012 / 6.67 / 11.67 / 25.00 / 56.67
Hispanic Students
2011-2012 / 9.09 / 63.64 / 27.27 / 0.00
White Students
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 18.75 / 35.42 / 45.83
All Students
2012-2013 / 2.80 / 10.28 / 31.78 / 55.14
Black Students 2012-2013 / 3.51 / 21.05 / 33.33 / 42.11
Hispanic Students
2012-2013 / 5.56 / 16.67 / 33.33 / 44.44
White Students 2012-2013 / 0.00 / 6.12 / 18.37 / 75.51
In 2011, Hispanic students had significantly lower scores compared to Black and White students in math. In 2012, the scores evened out a bit more, but there were significantly more white students scoring level IV (above average) in math. The data indicates that there was a significant push for math programming after the 2011-2012 school year, and the 2012-2013 test scores in math indicate that the programming was effective. However, there is still significant improvement that can be made for Hispanic students and some additional improvement for black and white students as well in terms of math performance.
Free Lunch Differences in Reading
Free Lunch = 34.62% of students 2011-2012
Free Lunch = 39.25% of students 2012-2013
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll School
2011-2012 / 0.96 / 13.46 / 37.50 / 48.08
Free Lunch
2011-2012 / 2.78 / 30.56 / 50.00 / 16.67
All School
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.48 / 32.71 / 59.81
Free Lunch 2012-2013 / 0.00 / 11.90 / 47.62 / 40.48
Students who were on free lunch had fewer individuals in level IV compared to the rest of the school. They did, however, have more people scoring level III, but at the same time, they made up the majority of the level I and level II populations. This data shows us that students who are on free/reduced lunch are at higher risk for falling below proficient in reading performance and they are less likely to score above average as well.
Free Lunch Differences in Math
Free Lunch = 34.62% of students 2011-2012
Free Lunch = 39.25% of students 2012-2013
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll School
2011-2012 / 3.81 / 41.90 / 26.67 / 27.62
Free Lunch
2011-2012 / 10.81 / 70.27 / 16.22 / 2.70
All School
2012-2013 / 2.80 / 10.28 / 31.78 / 55.14
Free Lunch 2012-2013 / 4.76 / 19.05 / 38.10 / 38.10
In 2011, students who were on free lunch scored significantly lower compared to the rest of the student population in math performance. While math scores improved dramatically in 2012, students who were on free lunch were at a higher risk for scoring level I or level II compared to the rest of the population and are less likely to score level IV compared to other students.
Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Differences in Reading
2
2011-2012
· Poverty = 59.62%
· Non-Poverty = 40.38%
2012-2013
· Poverty = 52.34%
· Non-Poverty = 47.66%
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll Students
2011-2012 / 0.96 / 13.46 / 37.50 / 48.08
Poverty
2011-2012 / 2.83 / 26.19 / 54.76 / 16.67
Non-Poverty
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 4.84 / 25.81 / 69.35
All Students
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.48 / 32.71 / 59.81
Poverty
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 11.76 / 50.98 / 37.25
Non-Poverty
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 3.57 / 16.07 / 80.36
In 2011 it was very evident that students in poverty scored lower than students in non-poverty. These scores did improve across the board in 2012; however, students in poverty were still at a higher risk for being level II compared to their non-poverty peers. Students in non-poverty were mostly in the level IV category, and students in poverty were significantly less likely to score in level IV. Therefore, the data leads us to conclude that students in poverty do have a good chance of scoring level III, but are much less likely to score level IV compared to their non-poverty peers who almost only score level IV in reading proficiency.
Poverty vs. Non-Poverty Differences in Math
2
2011-2012
· Poverty = 59.62%
· Non-Poverty = 40.38%
2012-2013
· Poverty = 52.34%
· Non-Poverty = 47.66%
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll Students
2011-2012 / 3.81 / 41.90 / 26.67 / 27.62
Poverty
2011-2012 / 9.30 / 67.44 / 18.60 / 4.65
Non-Poverty
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 24.19 / 32.26 / 43.55
All Students
2012-2013 / 2.80 / 10.28 / 31.78 / 55.14
Poverty
2012-2013 / 5.88 / 17.65 / 45.10 / 31.37
Non-Poverty
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 3.57 / 19.64 / 76.79
In 2011 it was very evident that students in poverty scored lower than students in non-poverty. These scores did improve across the board in 2012; however, students in poverty were still at a higher risk for being levels I or II compared to their non-poverty peers. Students in non-poverty were mostly in the level IV category, and students in poverty were significantly less likely to score in level IV. Therefore, the data leads us to conclude that students in poverty do have a good chance of scoring level III, but are much less likely to score level IV compared to their non-poverty peers who almost only score level IV in math proficiency.
Special Education Differences in Reading
2
2011-2012
· Special Education = 7.69%
· General Education = 92.31%
2012-2013
· Special Education = 10.28%
· General Education = 89.72%
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll Students
2011-2012 / 0.96 / 13.46 / 37.50 / 48.08
Special Education
2011-2012 / n/a / n/a / n/a / n/a
General Education
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 12.50 / 38.54 / 48.96
All Students
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.48 / 32.71 / 59.81
Special Education
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 36.36 / 36.36 / 27.27
General Education
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 4.17 / 32.29 / 63.54
Since there is no data from 2011, we cannot analyze the improvements for special education students from 2011 to 2012. However, we can observe that most general education students scored level IV for reading, while special education students were equally likely to score level II, III, or IV. This data can be typical though since there are varying levels of special education, so this variance is not uncommon or discouraging. Therefore, we can conclude that students in general education are more likely to score level IV than students in special education, but students in special education are receiving different services, so the data is almost non-comparable. Since several students are scoring so high in special education, we can conclude that Trace Crossings does have a strong reading program for students in special education.
Special Education Differences in Math
2
2011-2012
· Special Education = 7.69%
· General Education = 92.31%
2012-2013
· Special Education = 10.28%
· General Education = 89.72%
2
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVAll Students
2011-2012 / 3.81 / 41.90 / 26.67 / 27.62
Special Education
2011-2012 / n/a / n/a / n/a / n/a
General Education
2011-2012 / 3.09 / 40.21 / 28.87 / 27.84
All Students
2012-2013 / 2.80 / 10.28 / 31.78 / 55.14
Special Education
2012-2013 / 27.27 / 27.27 / 9.09 / 36.36
General Education
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 8.33 / 34.38 / 57.29
Since there is no data from 2011, we cannot analyze the improvements for special education students from 2011 to 2012. However, we can observe that most general education students scored level III or IV for math, while special education students were more likely to score level II or lower with a few outliers in level IV. This data can be typical though since there are varying levels of special education, so this variance is not uncommon or discouraging. Therefore, we can conclude that students in general education are more likely to score level III or IV than students in special education, but students in special education are receiving different services, so the data is almost non-comparable. Since several students are scoring higher in special education, we can conclude that Trace Crossings does have a growing math program for students in special education.
Comparative Schools in the Area – Differences in Reading
Level I / Level II / Level III / Level IVTrace Crossings 2011-2012 / 0.96 / 13.46 / 37.50 / 48.08
Hoover City School System
2011-2012 / 0.51 / 8.13 / 26.23 / 65.12
Liberty Park Elementary
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 2.73 / 8.18 / 89.09
Cherokee Bend Elementary
2011-2012 / 0.00 / 1.20 / 7.23 / 91.57
Oliver Elementary
2011-2012 / 3.23 / 17.74 / 46.77 / 32.26
Trace Crossings 2012-2013 / 0.00 / 7.48 / 32.71 / 59.81
Hoover City School System
2012-2013 / 0.30 / 5.27 / 23.63 / 70.79
Liberty Park Elementary 2012-2013 / 0.00 / 4.71 / 9.41 / 85.88
Cherokee Bend Elementary
2012-2013 / 0.00 / 3.90 / 7.79 / 88.31
Oliver Elementary
2012-2013 / 1.75 / 22.81 / 50.88 / 24.56
Trace Crossings Elementary is part of the Hoover City School System. Trace Crossings compares fairly well to Hoover City schools in terms of reading proficiency. In both 2011 and 2012, Hoover City Schools had higher rates of Level IV students than Trace Crossings did, but Trace Crossings also had more students on Level III than the system did overall, so it simply means that Trace Crossings has room to grow and can easily be pushed above the minimum requirements to achieve level IV. Other school systems like Vestavia Hills and Mountain Brook City Schools are doing a better job in reading scores than Trace Crossings, but Trace Crossings is also performing better than Birmingham City Schools. This data analysis reveals that Trace Crossings has potential to continue growing and improving test scores, but it is also encouraging that they are not at the bottom of the list in terms of test scores in reading proficiency.