FCAT Analysis Project – Reading
Student Name:
University:
Subject:
Instructor:
December 1st, 2013.
FCAT Reading Analysis Project
Introduction
On 24th May, 2012 FLDOE (the Florida Department of Education) published District and State data summary from 2012 spring of the FeAT 2.0 (Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test) for Grade 3 students. These results were published in advance of the rest of other grade levels to allow for promotion decisions. In 2011, FLDOE transitioned to FCAT 2.0 from FCAT in Reading to conform to the new standards of academic standards. In that respect, therefore, this criterion test evaluates the mastery ability of students of the content of grade-level, as outlined in the NGSSS. The FCAT Reading tests were for the first time administered in 2011 spring. In that initial FCAT 2.0 administration tests, the results of students were represented by FCAT equivalent scale. Nevertheless, in 2012 FeAT 2.0 students’ results for FCAT 2.0 Reading are represented in a new developmental scale scores that ranges between 140 and 302. Moreover, Achievement Levels derived from these novel scale scores have been obtained.
The newly developed FCAT 2.0 Achievement Scores maintain similar values as indicated for the FeAT Levels 1 to 5, but they cannot be compared directly, Level 3 stands as the satisfactory performance indicator. Grade 3 students have to attain FeAT 2.0 Level 2 Achievement or greater in Reading to be allowed for Grade 4 promotion.
To facilitate cross time comparisons, the FLDOE did retrofit the scores in 2011 to the new reporting scale of FeAT 2.0. The tables below comprise data based on both FCAT Equivalent SSS scores that were deduced from 2011, and the new FeAT 2.0 retrofitted scores, where applicable. It is important to highlight that these summary data are obtained from all the students evaluated, comprising the ELL (English Language Learners) as well as Students with Disabilities. They also comprise even students who enrolled for the first time in Grade 3 and or previously retained Grade 3 students.
Table 1
FACT 2.0 (2011 & 2012) Reading Level Data for State, District ad School
Grade Year Developmental Scale Score (Mean) School-District School-State State District School 2012 48% 71% 69% -2% 21% 2011 45% 75% 70% -7% 25% Table 2: Percentage of Students Scoring in FCAT Reading in Levels 1 & 2Table 2
Reading in 2012
StudentGroup Total Students White Black Hispanic Asian/Pacific Islander AmericanIndian Female Male StandardCurriculum ELL Free or ReducedLunch Total ESEother thanGifted
Grade 3
__ 27 40 25 16 13 24 25 28 31 28 19 41
Check if a concern x Table 3: FCAT Reading 2012 level data for State, District and School
SCHOOL, DISTRICT, STATE COMPARISON OF MEAN POINTS EARNED ON SUBTESTS
CLUSTERS WORDS/PHRASES MAIN IDEA/PURPOSE COMPARISONS REFERENCE/RESEARCH GRADE ENTITY POSSIBLEPOINTS 12 POSSIBLEPOINTS 14 POSSIBLEPOINTS 13 POSSIBLEPOINTS 12 MPE % MPE % MPE % MPE % 3 SCHOOL 8/12 67 7/14 50 8/13 61 7/12 58 DISTRICT 8/12 67 8/14 57 9/13 69 8/12 67 STATE 7/12 58 7/14 50 7/13 54 7/12 58 Analysis
As one of the numerous transformations to the Florida school accountability and State’s assessment system, the FLDOE changed to FCAT 2.0 from FCAT IN 2011 to be in line with novel academic content detailed in the NGSSS. Expected performance levels based on these new assessments are specifically a challenge in Miami-Dade County, based on the disproportionate proportion of ELL served in our schooling system: about 70,000 learners across the district or almost thrice the percentage served by other bid districts within the State.
In general, the performance of the third grade students in the district in 2012 remained stable, looking at the retrofitted 2011 FCAT 2.0 score.
In FCAT 2.0 Reading 67% of the Grade 3 District students obtained level 3 and above and this is one percentage higher on newly developed retrofitted scale. In spite of the disproportionate number of ELL learners served within our systems, Miami-Date County Public School did well than the State in Reading. 69% of Grade 3 District students demonstrated proficiency in reading (levels 2-5) meeting Grade 4 promotion requirement.
In comparing the FCAT 2011 original scale results with the 2012 FCAT2.0 results, the number of students scoring at levels 3-5 declined in both students statewide and District’s students. Nonetheless, the statewide decline in Reading was greater compared to the District. Even though the M-DCPS students demonstrated stable performance on the newly established FCAT 2.0 scale, it reflects a 14 points drop in Reading based on the scoring percent 3 and above of the old FCAT SSS 2011 scale.
Possible Causes of differences in the FCAT 2.0
In the process of identifying the possible causes of differences in FCAT 2.0 Reading, students who were successful were able to draw connections and make correct conclusions. They were also able to establish the major idea of a text as well as interpret exact information for instance identify the purpose of the author and understand quotation content and identify relevant ideas to back their conclusions. On the other hand, the group that was unsuccessful might have been due to having problem to:
Establishing an overall understanding what the text means
Concentrating on textual information as opposed to focusing on prior knowledge
Relying on the features of the text to understand to text
Carefully and Comprehensively reading the whole text
Understanding and finding the causal relationship
Something other than instruction could be teacher pay. This analysis shows that a correlation between student performance and teacher salary exist as better pay by district school improved job performance.
Potential Solutions
The possible suggestions to bridging the causing the differences in FCAR Reading scores would be to teach the entire scope of the entire benchmark due to the fact the various aspects of benchmarks can be evaluated from one year to the other. Instructions should be developed carefully to enable learners move from basic comprehension and decoding to critical reading and high-level cognitive skills and this can be done through adopting a broad range of reading assessments to evaluate the progress of students and to guide instruction.
There should also be monitoring and emphasizes concerning comprehensive school-based reading programs in all content areas, to promote acquisition of vocabulary through systematically offering intentional world-learning programs and assist learners establish appropriate strategies for determining the information relevance presented in various texts.
Differences in FCAR Reading scores can also be reduced through developing pre-reading by way of post-reading programs and make sure that the learner is proficient in the application of such programs for informational and literary text, and since learners could have less expository (informational) text experience, offer additional explicit practice and instruction strategies developed to improve comprehension of such text.
Concerning teacher salary, the government should deploy more difficult hiring and screening process, and this will essentially get rid of teachers who are sub-par and improve the proportion of high quality teaching staff. Ultimately, this could result to better performance without deploying financial incentive for better test scores.
Reference
1 Dec. 2013 <http://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/Definitions.aspx>
