K-PREP Data Sourcebook Richard G. Innes Staff Education Analyst Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions Revision 1 – December 1, 2012 Introduction Once again, Kentucky finds itself in the national spotlight for public school testing. The reason: new “Kentucky Performance Report for Educational Progress” (K-PREP) tests in elementary and middle school reading and mathematics are the first in the nation to be fully developed around the new Common Core State Standards. Those new standards have been adopted by more than 45 states, so Americans all across the country are anxious to see how these new standards and tests based on those standards actually perform. The math and reading scores from the K-PREP are only part of long-awaited results from Kentucky’s new public school assessment and accountability programs. The results from the KPREP tests and the new “Unbridled Learning” school accountability program were long overdue when they were finally made public on November 2, 2012. People are asking questions like: “What do these new test scores show?” “Is Kentucky’s new program really more rigorous?” “Is there more rigor in each separate tested area of reading, math, science, social studies and writing?” “Is K-PREP rigorous enough in each of those areas?” “Is the new “Gap” calculation a suitable substitute for the protections minority students enjoyed under No Child Left Behind?” “Is Unbridled Learning so complex that scores will always be delayed?” And, perhaps most important, “Does scoring ‘Proficient’ on the new K-PREP really mean my child is on track to enter college and careers?” The newspapers already covered the basic school rankings from Unbridled Learning in reasonable detail, but – because the final Unbridled Learning accountability scores are far removed from the raw proficiency rate information – there is a need to dig deeper into what the new tests represent for individual students and their parents. Thus, instead of looking at the overall Unbridled Learning school accountability scores, which are based on very complex and
sometimes confusing calculations, this source book concentrates on analysis of proficiency rate scores from K-PREP. The sourcebook also examines the serious question about performance gaps as they are reported by K-PREP as opposed to what Kentuckians used to get from the No Child Left Behind program. The sourcebook draws in part from individual blogs posted by the author in the Bluegrass Policy Blog starting on the official score release date of November 2, 2012. This will be a living document, growing as more analysis is completed on this important new assessment and accountability program. Readers are encouraged to check back in the future for updates.
K-PREP Data Sourcebook Index Part 1 Score Comparisons to Other Tests ………………………………… 1 K-PREP compared to other assessments – is K-PREP rigorous enough?..................... 1 MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math…………………………………………………………….. 2 K-PREP middle school reading………………………………………………………….. 3 K-PREP middle school science…………………………………………………………... 4 K-PREP social studies……………………………………………………………………. 5 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-PREP elementary school math……………………………………………………….. 6 K-PREP elementary school reading…………………………………………………….. 6 About K-PREP elementary school science……………………………………………… 7 HIGH SCHOOLS K-PREP high school math……………………………………………………………….. 8 K-PREP high school reading……………………………………………………..………. 9 K-PREP high school science……………………………………………………………. 10 K-PREP science at all school levels…………………………………………………….. 11
Part 2 Achievement Gaps ..………………………………………………... 13 Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in elementary schools……………….…….….. 13 Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in middle schools…………………………..…. 16 Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in high schools…………………………..……. 18 District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Elementary School Level…20 District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Middle School Level………22 District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – High School Level…………24
Data Sources……………………………………………………………….. 26
1 Index
Part 1 Score Comparisons to Other Tests K-PREP compared to other assessments – is K-PREP rigorous enough? This analysis package begins with examination of the closest available testing results from other tests such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and tests from the ACT, Inc. such as the ACT college entrance test and tests closely related to the ACT that are given to Kentucky’s eighth and tenth grade students. These comparisons explore the scoring rigor in the new K-PREP. Whenever possible, results from K-PREP are matched to the same year and grade level results from the other assessments. When that is not possible, comparisons are made using the most closely matched student cohorts available. To briefly overview the data in Part 1, Table 1 summarizes how K-PREP scoring compares to results from other testing programs that have value in predicting progress towards college and careers. Table 1 Overview of the New K-PREP Proficiency Rate Scoring Rigor Compared to Other Testing from NAEP and the ACT, Inc. Elementary School Mathematics Reading Science Social Studies
Middle School High School Mixed
K-PREP Seems On Target K-PREP Rigor Seems Somewhat Low K-PREP No Different from CATS
As Table 1 shows, there are many areas where the new assessment’s scoring rigor appears somewhat to very far below the required level. In a disturbing surprise, there are a number of cases where the scores provided by the new KPREP are essentially no different from the scores from the now disbanded CATS system. In fact, that is because the K-PREP science and social studies tests continue to use the old assessment standards from the now defunct CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT). While there is no comparison data to show if this is a problem in social studies because no comparison tests from ACT or NAEP are available, the lack of change in K-PREP science from the old KCCT’s rigor is a very serious issue. In essence, where the cells in Table 1 are colored bright red, Kentucky’s assessments remain locked into a CATS set of academic standards that many consider to be well below what is needed. Now, let’s start comparing the K-PREP results to other testing results for Kentucky’s students. We begin with eighth grade data because this grade offers the richest set of comparison testing available.
1
MIDDLE SCHOOLS K-PREP middle school math Figure 1 compares the eighth grade mathematics proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP to other test results available for our eighth grade students. The eighth grade K-PREP math test is very important both here in Kentucky and across the nation because it’s the first eighth grade test in the nation to incorporate the new Common Core State Standards into its development and scoring process.
Percent Proficient/Meeting Benchmark
Figure 1 Comparison of Test Performance in Middle School Math 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
59.7% 41.5% 30.5%
Percent 8th Graders Meeting EXPLORE Mathematics Benchmark 2012
31%
Percent 8th Percent of 8th Percent of 8th Graders Proficient Graders Proficient Graders Proficient or More in NAEP or More in K-PREP or More on KCCT Math 2011 Math 2012 Math 2011
Notice that K-PREP eighth grade math proficiency rate is definitely lower than the proficiency rate score from last year’s KCCT math assessment. That indicates scoring rigor is tighter on KPREP than under KCCT. However, while the K-PREP reported eighth grade math proficiency rate is notably lower than the old KCCT rate, the new K-PREP grade eight math proficiency rate is still more than 10 points higher than the proficiency rate for Kentucky’s public school students reported by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) one year ago. The new K-PREP proficiency rate is also more than 10 points higher than the percentage of the very same cohort of 2011-2012 Kentucky eighth graders that met the ACT’s EXPLORE test’s Benchmark Score for math (Note: Kentucky tests all eighth grade students with EXPLORE). Meeting that Benchmark score shows students are on track for solid success in high school and in follow-on college and career activities. So, while scoring on the K-PREP eighth grade math test appears to be considerably more rigorous than scoring from the state’s old assessment, K-PREP grade eight math scoring still may not be rigorous enough.
2
K-PREP middle school reading Figure 2 compares the reading proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP eighth grade test to other test results available for our eighth grade students. Like the math test, this new eighth grade K-PREP reading test is very important here in Kentucky and across the nation because it is the first test to incorporate the new Common Core State Standards into its development and scoring process. Figure 2 Comparison of Test Performance in Middle School Reading 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
71.4% 42.2%
46.7% 36%
Percent 8th Graders Percent 8th Graders Percent of 8th Percent of 8th Meeting EXPLORE Proficient or More in Graders Proficient or Graders Proficient or Reading Benchmark NAEP Reading 2011 More in K-PREP More in KCCT 2012 Reading 2012 Reading 2011
Notice that K-PREP scoring is definitely lower than the proficiency rate score from last year’s KCCT, which indicates K-PREP eighth grade reading is being much more rigorously graded. Also, unlike the K-PREP eighth grade math test, the K-PREP eighth grade reading test scoring looks more in line with the proficiency rate reported by the EXPLORE test’s Benchmark Score performance, which showed 42.2 percent of the same cohort of Kentucky’s eighth grade students in 2012 on track for solid success in high school and in follow-on college and career activities. However, the picture becomes more muddled when we look at the most recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading performance from one year ago. K-PREP proficiency is more than 10 points higher than the percentage Kentucky’s eighth graders that met the NAEP reading proficiency standard one year earlier in 2011. Usually, at the state level, educational performance does not shift so dramatically in just one year. So, while the K-PREP eighth grade reading test is certainly more rigorous than the old CATS assessments, it might not be quite rigorous enough, although the picture looks better than the situation for K-PREP math. We need to mention one more point about K-PREP reading, and this applies at all grade levels. As was the case with the state’s now defunct KIRIS and CATS KCCT assessments, Kentucky’s educators continued to read the new K-PREP assessments to undoubtedly significant, though currently unreported, numbers of the state’s students with learning disabilities. This practice inflates all reading scores for Kentucky.
3
As a consequence of the reading accommodation use in Kentucky, all of Kentucky’s reading scores from the NAEP from 1998 onward are also inflated, though by a somewhat different mechanism. In the case of NAEP, Kentucky’s students with disabilities have been excluded from taking the NAEP at very high rates compared to most other states because it is not permissible to read this federal assessment to such students. Instead, Kentucky students who have the reading accommodation are excluded from the NAEP. When significantly more students who are, as a group, going to score relatively low get excluded, the resulting score is inflated. This situation is well discussed in several Bluegrass Policy Blog (www.bipps.org/blog) items – search with the term “exclusion” to locate them. As a note, around 80 percent of the states in this country do not allow state reading assessments to be read to students. K-PREP middle school science Unlike the math and reading K-PREP tests, the K-PREP science tests have not been written to new national standards for the very simple reason that such standards are still in development and have not been approved and released. In fact, as we start to show here, the new K-PREP science tests look like warmed over CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT) right down to the obviously inflated scoring. Figure 3 compares the science proficiency rate reported by the new K-PREP seventh grade test to other science test results available for Kentucky’s middle school students. Figure 3 Comparison of Test Performance in Middle School Science 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
61.70%
64.04%
34% 14.2%
Percent 8th Graders Percent 8th Graders Percent of 7th Percent of 7th Meeting EXPLORE Proficient or More in Graders Proficient or Graders Proficient or Science Benchmark NAEP Science 2011 More in K-PREP More in KCCT 2012 Science 2012 Science 2011
Notice that the K-PREP science proficiency rate for seventh grade students is hardly lower than the proficiency rate score from last year’s KCCT. This is VERY different from the K-PREP math and reading situation. Also notice that the best comparison data available, which is from eighth grade science testing from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the ACT, Inc.’s EXPLORE, strongly indicate that if K-PREP science results were to be aligned to what students really need
4
to know in this area, the proficiency rates reported would be much lower than the 61.70 percent rate reported. Therefore, it appears that K-PREP science, at least at the middle school level, still suffers from the excessive inflation in scoring that plagued – and ultimately doomed – the CATS assessments. This implies the overall scores from the Unbridled Learning accountability program for middle schools are inflated, as well. K-PREP social studies Unlike the math and reading K-PREP tests, the K-PREP social studies tests have not been written to new national standards for a very simple reason – no such standards currently exist. Unfortunately, there are no comparison test results from either the NAEP or EXPLORE, etc. that cover the social studies area. So, Figure 4 is different from the ones already presented. Instead, this graph compares the social studies proficiency rates for all three school levels, elementary, middle and high school, for the new K-PREP social studies tests and the old CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests in social studies. Figure 4 Percent Proficient on Social Studies on K-PREP in 2012 and on CATS KCCT in 2011 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0%
59.8%
59.8%
58.6%
60.1% 39.5%
41.5%
30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percent of Percent 11th Percent of 5th Percent 5th Percent of 8th Percent 8th Graders High Schoolers Graders Graders Graders Graders Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or More in K- More on KCCT More in KMore on KCCT More in KMore on KCCT PREP Social Social Studies PREP Social Social Studies PREP Social Social Studies Studies 2012 2011 Studies 2012 2011 Studies 2012 2011
As you can see, there is a very consistent pattern. Essentially, the K-PREP social studies tests have returned virtually identical proficiency rate scores to those from the last year of KCCT testing. We have no way to determine if these new K-PREP scores for social studies are inflated, but we now definitely know that the K-PREP social studies scores are not different from the KCCT tests. Since the science K-PREP and the social studies results are not significantly different from the old KCCT tests, the overall impact on school scores in the state’s new Unbridled Learning school accountability system is not as significant as earlier reports from the Kentucky Department of Education tended to imply. By the way, this blending of data for different school levels provides a nice segue into the next section, which looks at specific comparison data for elementary schools. 5
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS K-PREP elementary school math On a bright note, it looks like K-PREP math scoring for Kentucky’s fourth grade students may be dead on target compared to the highly respected NAEP math results from one year ago.
Percent Proficient/Met Benchmar
Figure 5 Comparison of Test Performance in Elementary School Math 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
74.7%
39%
39.6%
Percent 4th Graders Percent of 4th Percent 4th Graders Proficient or More in Graders Proficient or Proficient or More on NAEP Math 2011 More in K-PREP Math KCCT Math 2011 2012
So, unlike the situation for middle school math, K-PREP math scoring standards for elementary schools may be set very well. Of course, we really need to look at the trends over time as more NAEP and K-PREP math scores become available to be certain K-PREP is set correctly. Will K-PREP scoring get easier over time and thereby inflate the scores, or will the K-PREP elementary school math results remain aligned with NAEP? Only time will tell, but in this subject and grade level, we have a good start. K-PREP elementary school reading While the elementary school K-PREP math scoring, at least at the fourth grade level, appears to be well aligned to the NAEP fourth grade math standards, we now will see that good news does not hold for reading.
6
Percent Proficient/Met Benchmar
Figure 6 Comparison of Test Performance in Elementary School Reading 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
73.5% 47.0% 35%
Percent 4th Graders Percent of 4th Proficient or More in Graders Proficient or NAEP Reading 2011 More in K-PREP Reading 2012
Percent 4th Graders Proficient or More KCCT Reading 2011
Unlike the elementary school math K-PREP, the K-PREP reading assessment at the fourth grade level returned a notably higher reading proficiency rate than Kentucky’s proficiency rate from the latest NAEP fourth grade reading assessment. Thus, while the K-PREP elementary school reading standards appear tighter than those from the CATS KCCT, they still might not be rigorous enough. This is an important discovery because the elementary school K-PREP tests are supposedly aligned to the national Common Core State Standards. Can it be those national standards for elementary school reading are also set to too low a level of rigor? Once again, it must be mentioned that all Kentucky reading results are inflated to an unknown degree because significant percentages of Kentucky’s students with learning disabilities have the reading assessments read to them. These special students only get a spoken word comprehension test, but the state reports their test results as though they are in every way comparable to results for other students who take Kentucky’s reading tests as true printed text decoding and comprehension exams. About K-PREP elementary school science NAEP’s latest 4th grade science results for Kentucky are from 2009. That is somewhat dated data compared to the 2012 K-PREP, so no graph was developed. For those who are interested, in 2009 Kentucky’s NAEP Fourth Grade Science proficiency rate was 45 percent for all students. K-PREP reported a fourth grade science proficiency rate in 2012 of 68.8 percent, obviously much higher. In 2011, CATS KCCT reported a fourth grade science proficiency rate of 70.53 percent. There is thus an indication that K-PREP elementary school science is currently just warmed over CATS.
7
HIGH SCHOOLS K-PREP high school math K-PREP test data in math in Kentucky’s high schools does not come from state-developed tests. Instead, the data come from new end-of-course exams developed by the ACT, Inc., called ACT Quality Core tests. For K-PREP, the Quality Core test used for accountability is the Algebra II test. This graph shows how proficiency rates compare between the K-PREP Algebra II end-of-course exam and the results from the ACT college entrance testing for Kentucky’s 11th grade students in 2012 and the results from the previous math test in Kentucky, the CATS Kentucky Core Content Test, also given to 11th grade students.
Perc ent Profic ie nt/Me t Benchm
Figure 7
Comparison of Test Performance in High School Math 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
38.6%
40.0%
46.0%
Percent 11th Graders Percent Proficient or Pe rcent 11th Graders Meeting CPE's ACT More in K-PREP Math Proficient or More on Mathematics 2012 KCCT Math 2011 Benchmark 2012
First, note that, quite unlike earlier KCCT results we’ve discussed, there isn’t a particularly large a difference between the proficiency rates from the old KCCT high school math test and the percentage of students that meet or exceeded the ACT Benchmark Score set by the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education (CPE). That CPE Benchmark is the performance level where students don’t have to take a remedial math course upon entering the state’s public postsecondary education system. Also, note that the new K-PREP math results are essentially equivalent to that CPE ACT Benchmark performance for math. So, for high school purposes, the ACT Quality Core test in Algebra II appears to be scored right on target to give a good indication that students are on track for college and careers. That’s not surprising given the ACT, Inc.’s well known focus and expertise on what it takes to succeed in college. 8
It should be noted that the ACT Quality Core tests in math may or may not be specifically aligned to the new Common Core State Standards at this time. However, college and careers is also supposed to be the CCSS focus, so close alignment may actually already be present. K-PREP high school reading K-PREP test data in reading for our high school students does not come from a state-developed tests. Instead, the reading score is derived from performance on a new end-of-course exam in English II developed by the ACT, Inc., as part of the ACT’s Quality Core tests. This graph shows how proficiency rates compare between the K-PREP end-of-course exam used for reading scoring and the results from ACT college entrance testing for Kentucky’s 11th grade students in 2012. I also show the results from the KCCT, which was given to 10th grade students.
Per cent Proficient/Met B enchm
Figure 8
Comparison of Test Performance in High School Reading 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%
65.90% 52.20% 41.9%
Perce nt 11th Graders Percent Proficient or Percent 10th Graders Proficient or More Meeting CPE's ACT More in K-PREP KCCT Reading 2011 Reading Benchmark Reading 2012 2012
In this graph, as opposed to what is found for high school math, we see the more typical pattern of the KCCT results being notably higher than the new K-PREP scores and the K-PREP results also notably higher than the ACT Benchmark percentages. This again raises concerns that while the test used for K-PREP reading in high school is more rigorous than the old KCCT, the level of rigor still may not be high enough. As was true with the high school math K-PREP test, the ACT Quality Core tests in language arts areas may or may not be specifically aligned to the new Common Core State Standards (CCSS) at this time. However, college and careers is also supposed to be the CCSS focus, so close alignment may actually already be present.
9
K-PREP high school science As with the other high school tests, K-PREP science scores for our high school students also do not come from a state-developed test. Instead, the high school science score is derived from performance on a new end-of-course exam in high school biology developed by the ACT, Inc., as part of the ACT’s Quality Core tests. Figure 9 shows how proficiency rates compare between the K-PREP end-of-course high school science assessment and the Benchmark Score results from ACT’s PLAN test given to Kentucky’s 10th grade students in the 2011-2012 school year. We use PLAN for this comparison because the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education does not provide an ACT Benchmark Score in science, so the Kentucky Department of Education’s data does not include a science benchmark statistic for the ACT. The PLAN Benchmark Score is linked to Benchmark Scores developed by the ACT, Inc. for the ACT test. Scoring at or above the ACT Benchmarks, which are developed from a survey of colleges to ascertain true student performance, indicates students have a 75 percent chance of passing their first related college course in science. The PLAN Benchmark Score performance shown in this graph indicates the proportion of Kentucky students in the 10th grade that are on track to do well in following high school science courses that in turn will prepare those students to succeed in postsecondary education.
Percent Proficient/Meeting Benchmar
Figure 9 Comparison of Test Performance in High School Science 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0%
41.37%
40.0% 30.0%
30.30% 21.1%
20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percent 10th Graders Percent High Schoolers Percent 11th Graders Proficient or More Meeting Science PLAN Proficient or More in KKCCT Science 2011 PREP Science 2012 Benchmark 2012
Yet again, the fairly typical patterns found in most of our examples from the elementary and middle schools are repeated. The PLAN Science Benchmark performance is notably lower than the new K-PREP performance, but the K-PREP performance is notably lower than the performance from the last year of high school KCCT science testing. This again raises the question of whether the rigor in the K-PREP scoring is high enough.
10
K-PREP science at all school levels As we discussed in earlier comments about social studies, we also find disturbing evidence that the new K-PREP science assessments for elementary and middle schools are nothing more than warmed over CATS Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT). Figure 10 makes that clear. Figure 10 Percent Pr oficient on Science on K-PREP in 20 12 and on CAT S KCCT in 2011 100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0%
68.8%
70.5% 61.8%
64.0%
41.4% 30.3%
30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0% Percent of 4th Percent 4th Percent of 7th Percent 7th Percent of Percent 11th Graders Graders Graders Graders High Schoolers Graders Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or Proficient or More in KMore on KCCT More in KMore on KCCT More in K- M ore on KCCT PREP Science Science 2011 PREP Science Science 2011 PREP Science Science 2011 2012 2012 2012
This is particularly disturbing because Senate Bill 1 from the 2009 Regular Legislative Session (http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/09rs/SB1/bill.doc), which led to the creation of K-PREP, stipulates on Page 4 that academic content standards would be revised by now in all key academic subjects, science definitely included. The revised standards would, “Focus on critical knowledge, skills, and capacities needed for success in the global economy.” The law continues by saying the responsible agencies are to “Ensure that the standards are aligned from elementary to high school to postsecondary education so that students can be successful at each education level.” On Page 6, the law requires all changes to be promulgated by January 15, 2011. On Page 7, the law says, “Using the revised academic standards developed pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the board shall revise the annual statewide assessment program for implementation in the 2011-2012 academic year.” Well, it does not look like that happened in K-PREP science, or in social studies, either.
11
Because the standards for science and social studies seem unchanged from CATS, that makes the new K-PREP scores in those areas no more trustworthy than those old CATS scores were. Parents and students need to be aware of this and should be cautious about relying on K-PREP scores as accurate indications of academic preparation in these subject areas.
12
Part 2 Achievement Gaps Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in elementary schools One of the biggest concerns about the new K-PREP program is a loss of the level of protection afforded to minorities under the now waived No Child Left Behind school accountability program. While the new Unbridled Learning accountability program does include an element that looks at achievement gaps, it does so by lumping all minorities and special students into one overall calculation. That can leave student subgroups behind. The data shown below for elementary schools indicates that racial achievement gaps remain a problem. Figure 11 shows the elementary school gaps in white to African-American and White to Hispanic reading proficiency rates (the combined percentage of students scored “Proficient” and “Distinguished”) for the new K-PREP and the now defunct Kentucky Core Content Tests (KCCT) from one year earlier. The data is broken down by grade. To read this table, the first bar on the left shows the gap in proficiency rates for whites and African-Americans in third grade reading was 24.9 percent on K-PREP. The red bar immediately to the right of the first bar shows that last year the white to African-American reading proficiency gap in the third grade reported by the KCCT was notably lower, at 20.3 percent. Figure 11
Overall, with the change to K-PREP the achievement gaps grew for every combination shown on the reading graph. 13
Figure 12 is a similar graph for the elementary school white to black and white to Hispanic mathematics achievement gaps. Figure 12
The racial gap situation is only slightly better for math. The grade 3 white to African-Americans gap stayed nearly constant. The grade 5 white to African-Americans gap showed notable improvement. However, in all the other sets of data shown, the gaps grew with the introduction of K-PREP.
14
For those who like their data in tables, here it is for elementary school reading and math gaps: Table 2
Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Elementary School Reading, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011 SCH YEAR
DIST NAME
CONTENT LEVEL
CONTENT TYPE
20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State State State State State State State
Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School
Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading Reading
GRADE LEVEL
DISAGG LABEL
3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic) African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic) African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
3 3 4 4 5 5
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
K-PREP READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012 28 37.8 52.9 26.5 36.1 50.5 28 37.4 50.4
KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011 63.06 72.63 83.38 53.63 67.15 76.43 57.52 69.6 76.45
24.9 15.1 24.0 14.4 22.4 13.0
20.32 10.75 22.80 9.28 18.93 6.85
GAPS
Table 3
Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Elementary School Math, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011 SCH YEAR
DIST NAME
CONTENT LEVEL
CONTENT TYPE
20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State State State State State State State
Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School Elementary School
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
GRADE LEVEL
DISAGG LABEL
3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic) African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic) African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
3 3 4 4 5 5
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
K-PREP MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012
KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
25.2 33.1 45.5 21.3 28.0 42.5 20.6 30.3 41.4
60.00 70.90 80.49 57.68 68.71 77.23 45.32 60.16 68.84
20.3 12.4 21.2 14.5 20.8 11.1
20.49 9.59 19.55 8.52 23.52 8.68
GAPS
15
Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in middle schools As we found in the elementary schools, the K-PREP white to black and white to Hispanic reading proficiency rate gaps grew in every middle school grade from the gaps in the last year of the KCCT. Figure 13
Proficiency Rate Gap, Percen
Achievement Gaps from K-PREP and CATS KCCT, Middle School Reading, by Grade Level 30.0 GAP, K-PREP READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISH ED 2012
25.0 20.0 15.0 10.0
GAP, KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISH ED 2011
5.0
White Hispanic
White Afr. Amer.
White Hispanic
White Afr. Amer.
White Hispanic
GRADE
White Afr. Amer.
0.0
6
6
7
7
8
8
The situation is more varied for middle school math achievement gaps, but the gaps remain significant. Figure 14 Achievement Gaps from K-PREP and CATS KCCT, Middle School Math, by Grade Level Proficiency Rate Gap, Percen
30 25
GAP, K-PREP MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012
20 15 10
GAP, KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
5
16
White Hispanic
White Afr. Amer.
White Hispanic
White Afr. Amer.
White Hispanic
GRADE
White Afr. Amer.
0
6
6
7
7
8
8
Here are the middle school achievement gap data tables. Table 4
Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Middle School Reading, KPREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011 SCH YEAR
DIST NAME
CONTENT LEVEL
CONTENT TYPE
GRADE LEVEL
DISAGG LABEL
20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State
Middle School Middle School Middle School
Reading Reading Reading
6 6 6
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
K-PREP READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012 25.7 35.6 49.1
KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State
Middle School Middle School Middle School
Reading Reading Reading
7 7 7
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
26.8 36.5 50.9
48.11 61.56 69.36
20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State
Middle School Middle School Middle School
Reading Reading Reading
8 8 8
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
25.1 37.5 49.9
52.94 64.54 73.98
6 6
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
23.4 13.5
22.50 10.59
7 7
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
24.1 14.4
21.25 7.80
8 8
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
24.8 12.4
21.04 9.44
51.95 63.86 74.45
GAPS
Table 5
Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for Middle School Math, K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011 SCH YEAR
DIST NAME
CONTENT LEVEL
CONTENT TYPE
GRADE LEVEL
DISAGG LABEL
K-PREP MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012
KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State
Middle School Middle School Middle School
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
6 6 6
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
20.7 31 44.8
47.16 63.01 72.99
20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State
Middle School Middle School Middle School
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
7 7 7
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
17.9 29.2 41.5
40.76 57.51 69.05
20112012 20112012 20112012
State State State
Middle School Middle School Middle School
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
8 8 8
African American Hispanic White (Non Hispanic)
22.1 34.1 44.2
35.31 50.60 63.17
6 6
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
24.1 13.8
25.83 9.98
7 7
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
23.6 12.3
28.29 11.54
8 8
White - Afr. Amer. White - Hispanic
22.1 10.1
27.86 12.57
GAPS
17
Statewide K-PREP achievement gaps in high schools As previously mentioned, the K-PREP reading and math data for high schools does not come from new state-developed tests that are fully aligned to the Common Core State Standards. Instead, Kentucky is using ACT Quality Core tests in English II (which is counted as the state’s reading score) and Algebra II. Also, while the general case is that each student will take these tests only once in high school, the time when a student takes the test is determined by individual student progression and is not strictly aligned to a specific grade. So, the term “EOC” appears on the grade line in the tables below. The KCCT in reading was given only to grade 10 students. Figure 15 Achievement Gaps from K-PREP (Based on End-of-Course English II) and CATS KCCT, High School Reading
Proficiency Rate Gap, Percen
25.0
GAP, K-PREP English II READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISH ED 2012
20.0 15.0
GAP, KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISH ED 2011
10.0 5.0 0.0
GRADE
White - Afr. Amer.
White - Hispanic
EOC/10
EOC/10
As was true in the lower school levels, the gaps have notably grown in reading with the change to K-PREP’s end-of-course exam program. The trend was in the opposite direction in math, however. Figure 16 Achievement Gaps from K-PREP (End-of-Course Algebra II) and CATS KCCT, High School Math
Proficiency Rate Gap, Percen
25 20
GAP, K-PREP Algebra II MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012
15 10
GAP, KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
5 0
GRADE
18
White - Afr. Amer.
White - Hispanic
EOC/11
EOC/11
Here is the high school data in table format. Table 6
Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for High School Reading (Endof-Course English II), K-PREP in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011 SCH YEAR
DIST NAME
CONTENT LEVEL
CONTENT TYPE
GRADE LEVEL
DISAGG LABEL
K-PREP English II READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012 31.8
KCCT READ PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
20112012
State
High School
Reading
EOC/10
African American
20112012
State
High School
Reading
EOC/10
Hispanic
41.4
60.98
50.13
20112012
State
High School
Reading
EOC/10
White (Non Hispanic)
55.3
68.23
EOC/10
White - Afr. Amer.
23.5
18.10
EOC/10
White - Hispanic
13.9
7.25
GAPS
Table 7
Proficiency Rates and Achievement Gaps for High School Math, K-PREP (End-of-Course Algebra II) in 2012 and CATS KCCT in 2011 SCH YEAR
DIST NAME
CONTENT LEVEL
CONTENT TYPE
20112012
State
High School
Mathematics
20112012
State
High School
Mathematics
20112012
State
High School
Mathematics
GRADE LEVEL
DISAGG LABEL
K-PREP Algebra II MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2012
KCCT MATH PCT PROFICIENT DISTINGUISHED 2011
EOC/11
African American
24.4
28.10
EOC/11
Hispanic
35.1
38.74
EOC/11
White (Non Hispanic)
42.1
48.18
EOC/11
White - Afr. Amer.
17.7
20.08
EOC/11
White - Hispanic
7.0
9.44
GAPS
19
District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Elementary School Level Table 8 shows district-level mathematics proficiency rate achievement gaps for whites minus blacks at the elementary school level. The proficiency rates were developed by averaging the individual grade proficiency rates for grades 3, 4 and 5 together. Where data was missing for some grades, the available data was averaged together, and the cells with such data are shaded in yellow. Only districts that had both white and black data reported are shown. Notice that the very top district listed, Murray Independent, was classified as a “Distinguished” “District of Distinction.” The district’s severe white versus black performance gap was not identified by Unbridled Learning. Not far behind Murray, a number of districts were rated “Proficient” and face no sanctions (and will get no assistance, either) despite white minus black math proficiency achievement gaps of at least 25 percentage points. Districts ranked at #3 and #4 on the listing have extremely low black proficiency rates, as well, well below the average for all the districts shown. Perhaps most remarkable, the districts that were identified as “Focus Districts” have some of the lowest achievement gaps and appear near the bottom of the table. Of special interest, near the very bottom of the elementary school district listing is Union County. Their black and white proficiency rates are nearly equal, and the black rate is way above the average for all the listed districts. Move up the table a bit to Caldwell County. Its black proficiency rate is well below Union County’s while its white rate is scarcely higher than Union County’s. However, Caldwell ranks in the top 70% of all districts in the state per Unbridled Learning, while Union “Needs Improvement.” Really? Or, check out Trigg County. It’s white minus black math proficiency rate only differs by 10 points, but Trigg’s proficiency rates for both races are well above those for Caldwell. Still, Unbridled Learning tells us that it’s Trigg that “Needs Improvement.” Table 8 District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Elementary School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year DISTRICT NAME
Murray Independent Paducah Independent Bowling Green Independent Woodford County Fayette County Shelby County Glasgow Independent Muhlenberg County
20
Black Simple Average Proficiency Rate 25.0 19.8 18.2 19.8 25.9 23.5 15.5 20.9
White Simple Average Proficiency Rate 69.3 55.7 52.0 52.8 58.1 52.5 43.1 47.5
GAP
44.3 35.9 33.8 33.0 32.1 28.9 27.6 26.7
Rank on Gap
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
CLASSIFICATION
Distinguished Needs Improvement Proficient Proficient Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Needs Improvement
REWARD RECOGNITION
District of Distinction
District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Elementary School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year (Cont.) DISTRICT NAME
Scott County Montgomery County Elizabethtown Independent Pike County McCracken County Daviess County Oldham County Jefferson County Simpson County Boone County Washington County Frankfort Independent Clark County Warren County Mason County Paris Independent Mayfield Independent Christian County Todd County Hopkins County Hardin County Danville Independent Madison County Jessamine County Caldwell County Henderson County Marion County Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Campbellsville Independent Franklin County Bardstown Independent Mercer County Fulton County Kenton County Newport Independent Covington Independent Trigg County Bullitt County Owensboro Independent Russellville Independent Union County Fulton Independent Simple Averages
Black Simple Average Proficiency Rate 24.9 23.8 23.2 10.0 24.3 29.3 26.9 20.4 22.8 26.8 14.7 13.6 26.6 20.4 24.6 19.0 22.7 25.7 30.5 27.8 27.6 31.4 23.9 21.2 22.3 34.4 31.8 28.2 17.5 27.7 15.9 20.0 8.9 40.6 7.7 15.8 41.7 31.6 23.4 24.0 36.8 30.7
White Simple Average Proficiency Rate 51.5 49.8 48.6 35.2 49.4 54.3 51.8 45.1 47.3 51.1 37.7 35.8 48.8 42.4 45.2 39.4 42.6 45.5 50.2 47.4 47.2 50.8 41.6 38.7 39.7 51.2 48.6 43.9 31.4 41.1 29.1 31.9 20.7 52.1 18.9 26.3 51.7 41.3 33.1 32.0 38.8 17.6
23.8
43.5
Indicates data for some grades missing, available data was averaged Only includes districts with both black and white data available
21
GAP
26.6 26.1 25.4 25.2 25.0 25.0 24.9 24.7 24.6 24.3 23.0 22.2 22.1 21.9 20.6 20.4 19.9 19.8 19.7 19.6 19.6 19.4 17.7 17.4 17.4 16.8 16.7 15.7 13.9 13.5 13.2 11.9 11.8 11.5 11.2 10.5 10.1 9.8 9.7 8.0 2.0 -13.1
Rank on Gap
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
CLASSIFICATION
Proficient Proficient Proficient Needs Improvement Proficient Proficient Distinguished Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement
REWARD RECOGNITION
District of Distinction
Focus District Focus District Focus District
Focus District Focus District Focus District
19.8
District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – Middle School Level Table 9 is similar to the previous table and shows the achievement gaps for middle school students (Grades 6, 7 and 8 averaged together) show a somewhat more varied pattern of gap size versus Unbridled Learning district classification. However, inspection of Table 9 shows that Unbridled Learning is not sensitive to white minus black math proficiency rate gaps at this school level, either. Notice that the two top gap school districts are both rated “Proficient” although their black math proficiency rates in math are well below the average for all the middle schools shown. Table 9 District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Middle School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year DISTRICT NAME
Black Simple Average Proficiency Rate
White Simple Average Proficiency Rate
GAP
Rank on Gap
Classification
LaRue County
15.4
55.9
40.5
1
Proficient
Caldwell County
16.7
57.2
40.5
2
Proficient
Fayette County
24.9
60.7
35.9
3
Needs Improvement
Fulton County
0.0
35.1
35.1
4
Needs Improvement
29.9
62.8
32.9
5
Proficient
Glasgow Independent Fulton Independent
10.1
40.9
30.9
6
Needs Improvement
Paducah Independent
20.3
50.9
30.6
7
Needs Improvement
Washington County
7.9
38.2
30.3
8
Needs Improvement
Oldham County
31.0
60.7
29.7
9
Distinguished
Woodford County
16.7
45.8
29.1
10
Proficient
McCracken County
23.6
52.4
28.8
11
Proficient
Meade County
27.3
54.9
27.6
12
Distinguished
Warren County
22.9
49.8
26.9
13
Needs Improvement
Shelby County
16.1
43.0
26.9
14
Needs Improvement
Muhlenberg County
14.5
40.2
25.7
15
Needs Improvement
Bullitt County
16.8
42.0
25.3
16
Needs Improvement
Jefferson County
17.5
42.4
24.9
17
Needs Improvement
Ashland Independent
16.7
41.3
24.6
18
Proficient
Elizabethtown Independent Scott County
19.2
43.1
24.0
19
Proficient
22.7
46.5
23.8
20
Proficient
Boone County
31.5
54.7
23.2
21
Proficient
Bowling Green Independent Mason County
32.5
55.6
23.1
22
Proficient
26.9
49.9
23.0
23
Needs Improvement
Jessamine County
15.7
38.5
22.7
24
Needs Improvement
Daviess County
25.9
48.5
22.6
25
Proficient
Trigg County
20.0
42.6
22.6
26
Needs Improvement
Hopkins County
19.4
41.2
21.8
27
Needs Improvement
Union County
18.9
40.6
21.7
28
Needs Improvement
22
Reward Recognition
Focus District Focus District
District of Distinction
High Performing District
District White and Black K-PREP Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for Middle School Grades, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year (Cont.) DISTRICT NAME
Black Simple Average Proficiency Rate 21.2
White Simple Average Proficiency Rate 42.6
21.5
29
Needs Improvement
Christian County
17.5
38.9
21.4
30
Needs Improvement
Russellville Independent Danville Independent
10.7
31.8
21.1
31
Needs Improvement
15.5
Todd County
GAP
Rank on Gap
Classification
36.1
20.5
32
Needs Improvement
Bardstown Independent Simpson County
14.1
34.3
20.2
33
Needs Improvement
19.3
39.0
19.7
34
Needs Improvement
Bourbon County
23.1
42.5
19.4
35
Needs Improvement
Henderson County Hardin County Owensboro Independent Harlan County Murray Independent Newport Independent Marion County Franklin County Clark County Madison County Mayfield Independent Kenton County Erlanger-Elsmere Independent Campbellsville Independent Paris Independent Pulaski County Covington Independent Mercer County Frankfort Independent Montgomery County
22.7 26.8 17.1
41.7 45.8 34.8
19.0 19.0 17.7
36 37 38
Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement
18.2 55.8 12.9 40.2 22.9 39.9 34.0 28.3 37.3 14.0
35.8 68.8 24.8 52.0 34.4 51.0 44.7 38.8 46.6 21.5
17.6 13.0 11.9 11.8 11.5 11.1 10.7 10.6 9.4 7.6
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48
Needs Improvement Distinguished Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient Needs Improvement
39.6
46.0
6.4
49
Needs Improvement
10.4 40.0 10.6 30.0 37.5 38.5
16.8 45.0 15.4 32.9 38.1 33.6
6.4 5.0 4.8 2.9 0.6 -4.9
50 51 52 53 54 55
Needs Improvement Distinguished Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Needs Improvement Proficient
Simple Averages
22.9
43.1
20.2
Indicates data for some grades missing, available data was averaged Only includes districts with both black and white data available
23
Reward Recognition
Focus District
Focus District
District of Distinction Focus District
High Performing District Focus District
District K-Prep White-Black Math Achievement Gaps – High School Level The pattern of gaps versus performance in Table 10 is somewhat similar to the pattern in Table 9, with various Unbridled Learning classifications scattered throughout. Unlike Table 8 and 9, however, the data in Table 10 comes from the Algebra II end-of-course exams instead of gradeby-grade K-PREP testing. McCracken County is worthy of particular notice. While ranking at #5 for its math gap, this district was awarded an Unbridled Learning classification of “Proficient,” indicating it performs better than 70 percent of all the districts. Never the less, this district had a zero proficiency rate for blacks yet escaped “Focus District” status. There were 16 African-American students in the Algebra II tested pool for this district in 2012. That is a rather large number to not have even one student score proficient. Two other districts in Table 10 have a zero proficiency rate for blacks on Algebra II, as well, but neither is a “Focus District.” Table 10 District White and Black Algebra II Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for High Schools, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year District Name
Paducah Independent
Black Proficiency Rate
White Proficiency Rate
GAP
Rank on Gap
Classification
8.0
56.9
48.9
1 Needs Improvement
Bowling Green Independent
23.1
68.7
45.6
2 Proficient
Woodford County
3 Proficient
22.2
65.5
43.3
Marion County
5.3
46.0
40.7
4 Needs Improvement
McCracken County
0.0
40.4
40.4
5 Proficient
Bourbon County
20.0
58.2
38.2
6 Needs Improvement
Fayette County
21.0
58.3
37.3
7 Needs Improvement
Jessamine County
20.0
52.1
32.1
8 Needs Improvement
Scott County
12.9
43.3
30.4
9 Proficient
Glasgow Independent
27.3
55.1
27.8
10 Proficient
Jefferson County
28.4
55.7
27.3
11 Needs Improvement
Graves County
18.2
45.0
26.8
12 Proficient
Clark County Elizabethtown Independent
7.4
33.9
26.5
13 Needs Improvement
24.0
50.3
26.3
14 Proficient
Reward Recognition
Simpson County
23.3
48.3
25.0
15 Needs Improvement
Russellville Independent
12.5
37.2
24.7
16 Needs Improvement Focus District
Oldham County
28.1
52.3
24.2
17 Distinguished
Mayfield Independent
29.2
51.6
22.4
18 Needs Improvement
Warren County
26.4
48.8
22.4
19 Needs Improvement
Paris Independent
23.5
45.7
22.2
20 Needs Improvement
7.1
28.9
21.8
21 Needs Improvement Focus District
Fulton County Frankfort Independent
27.8
48.8
21.0
22 Needs Improvement
Meade County
20.0
40.9
20.9
23 Distinguished
Logan County
18.2
39.0
20.8
24 Proficient
24
District of Distinction
High Performing District
District White and Black Algebra II Mathematics Proficiency Rates, Proficiency Rate Gaps and Unbridled Learning Accountability and Reward Classification for High Schools, Sorted by Gap Size, 2011-12 School Year (Cont.) District Name
Shelby County
Black White Proficiency Proficiency Rate Rate 8.2 28.5
Rank on Gap
Classification
20.3
25 Needs Improvement
20.0
26 Proficient
Reward Recognition
Boone County
34.1
Hardin County
19.5
38.8
19.3
27 Needs Improvement
9.1
28.4
19.3
28 Needs Improvement Focus District
Newport Independent
54.1
GAP
Madison County
26.1
45.2
19.1
29 Needs Improvement
Erlanger-Elsmere Independent
15.4
34.4
19.0
30 Needs Improvement
Christian County
22.2
41.1
18.9
31 Needs Improvement
Hopkins County
34.7
53.4
18.7
32 Needs Improvement
Trigg County
19.0
35.9
16.9
33 Needs Improvement
0.0
15.8
15.8
34 Needs Improvement
Muhlenberg County Fulton Independent
6.7
21.7
15.0
35 Needs Improvement Focus District
Danville Independent
33.3
47.3
14.0
36 Needs Improvement
Ashland Independent
30.8
41.6
10.8
37 Proficient
3.9
14.1
10.2
38 Needs Improvement Focus District
Union County
4.3
13.1
8.8
39 Needs Improvement
Washington County
0.0
8.8
8.8
40 Needs Improvement
Owensboro Independent
Kenton County
28.6
36.2
7.6
41 Proficient
Pulaski County
41.7
48.1
6.4
42 Distinguished
2.4
7.8
5.4
43 Needs Improvement Focus District
Daviess County
36.0
39.9
3.9
44 Proficient
Franklin County
36.8
36.2
-0.6
45 Needs Improvement
State
24.4
42.1
17.7
Needs Improvement
Covington Independent
Only includes districts with both black and white data available
25
High Performing District
Data Sources Algebra II (K-PREP) Scores – 2011-2012 “K-PREP End-of-Course” Excel Spreadsheet from KDE. Go to this page: (http://applications.education.ky.gov/SRC/DataSets.aspx) and select the “KPREP End-of-Course” link under the Assessment area. Bluegrass Policy Blog (www.bipps.org/blog). CATS KCCT Scores – “2010-2011 Interim Performance Report, State,” Kentucky Department of Education, Frankfort, KY. May no longer be on line. CPE ACT Benchmark Score Performance for Juniors in 2012 Excel Spreadsheet, (http://education.ky.gov/AA/Reports/Documents/ACT_CPE_Benchmarks_201112.xls). EXPLORE Benchmark Scores Excel Spreadsheet from Kentucky Department of Education, (http://education.ky.gov/AA/Reports/Documents/EXPLOREBenchmarks06071012.xls). Freedomkentucky.org Wiki Site (www.freedomkentucky.org). K-PREP Proficiency Rates – 2011-2012 “K-PREP Grade” Excel Spreadsheet from KDE. Go to this page: (http://applications.education.ky.gov/SRC/DataSets.aspx) and select the “Grade” link under the Assessment, K-PREP area (Note: This is a very large xlsx file format that cannot be fully opened by older versions of Excel). NAEP Data Explorer, (http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/naepdata/). PLAN Benchmark performance in 2012, (http://education.ky.gov/AA/Reports/Documents/PLANBenchmarks06071112.xls).
Note: Find this report on line here: http://www.freedomkentucky.org/images/2/22/KPREP_Data_Sourcebook.pdf
26
