Lisa's+Group+Project+-+Part+1

= __** Lisa's Group Project - Part 1 **__ = = =

**1.** **Using the NAEP website, how does MI compare to your assigned state in Mathematics?**

For the 4th grade analysis, both Arizona and Michigan performed below the national average with Arizona performing lower than Michigan. Arizona did indicate an improvement is scores over time by 20 points from 2000 to 2009. Michigan noted an improvement in scores from 2000 to 2003 (with the score from 2003 being the same as from 2009). It was interesting to note that there was improvement noted in 2005 and 2007 (the only other times that data was noted) to 238. The analysis of this data stated that the difference in scores from 2007 to 2009 were not significantly different. For the 8th grade analysis, Arizona and Michigan preformed below the national average, with no significant difference noted between them. Arizona’s scores improved overall from 2000 to 2007 (with a slight decline noted from 2007 to 2009 from 232 to 230 – which was noted on the website as not being a significant difference in score). This analysis indicates an overall improvement in mathematical scores over time. Michigan’s scores improved the most from 1992 to 1996 (from 264 to 277) with minimal increases or decreases (of only 1 point) from 1996 to 2009. In comparing the scores between Arizona and Michigan, no significant differences were noted. Percentage of 2009 scores at or above the //national basic level//: Analysis indicates that both states improved in this area over time. Analysis between Arizona and Michigan at the 4th grade level indicates that Michigan preformed higher than Arizona in this area. Analysis between Arizona and Michigan in the 8th grade level indicates no significant differences between the states. Percentage of 2009 scores at or above the //national proficient level:// Analysis indicates that both states improved in this area over time. Analysis also indicates that Michigan preformed higher than Arizona in this category.
 * 2009 data used:**
 * ** Grade level ** || ** Arizona ** || ** Michigan ** || ** National ** ||
 * ** 4th ** || 230 || 236 || 239 ||
 * ** 8th ** || 277 || 278 || 282 ||
 * ** 12th ** || Not available || Not available || Not applicable ||
 * ** Grade level ** || ** Arizona ** || ** Michigan ** ||
 * ** 4th ** || 71 || 78 ||
 * ** 8th ** || 67 || 68 ||
 * ** Grade level ** || ** Arizona ** || ** Michigan ** ||
 * ** 4th ** || 28 || 35 ||
 * ** 8th ** || 29 || 31 ||

**2.** **Using the NAEP website, how does Michigan compare to your assigned state in Reading?**

2009 data used: Michigan performed higher than Arizona in the 4th and 8th grade levels and was comparable to the national level with no significant difference noted (to the national level). The Michigan 4th grade results have not significantly changed from 20022 to 2009. Arizona's 4th grade results improved by 5 points from 2002 to 2009. The Michigan and Arizona 8th grade results have not significantly changed from 2002 to 2009. Percentage of 2009 scores at or above the //national basic level//: Michigan scored higher than Arizona in the 4th and 8th grades in the national basic level. There was no significant difference in Michigan or Arizona’s 4th grade scores from 1992 to 2009 noted. There was no significant difference in Michigan and Arizona’s 8th grade scores for the periods that data is available (1998 to 2009 for Arizona and 2002 to 2009 for Michigan) indicate no significant changes. Percentage of 2009 scores at or above the //national proficient level:// Michigan scored higher than Arizona in the 4th and 8th grades in the national proficient level. Michigan and Arizona 4th grade level analysis indicates no significant changes from 1998 to 2009. Michigan and Arizona’s 8th grade scores for the periods that data is available (1998 to 2009 for Arizona and 2002 to 2009 for Michigan) indicate no significant changes.
 * **Grade level** || **Arizona** || **Michigan** || **National** ||
 * **4th** || 210 || 218 || 220 ||
 * **8th** || 258 || 262 || 262 ||
 * **12th** || Not available || Not available || Not applicable ||
 * ** Grade level ** || ** Arizona ** || ** Michigan ** ||
 * ** 4th ** || 56 || 64 ||
 * ** 8th ** || 68 || 72 ||
 * **Grade level** || **Arizona** || **Michigan** ||
 * **4th** || 25 || 30 ||
 * **8th** || 27 || 31 ||

**3.** **Using the NAEP website, how does grade 4 compare to grade 8 with respect to Race/Ethnicity, Parental Ed, and Family Income in the area of History?**

Race/Ethnicity: For both 4th and 8th grade students, the White population scored highest, followed by the Asian/Pacific Islander, then the Hispanic and finally the Black along with the American Indian. There was no significant difference in scores between the Black and American Indian for both the 4th and 8th grades.
 * **Grade level** || **White** || **Asian/Pacific Islander** || **Hispanic** || **Black** || **American Indian** ||
 * **4th** || 223 || 214 || 194 || 191 || 190 ||
 * **8th** || 273 || 270 || 248 || 244 || 244 ||

For both 4th and 8th grade students: White, Black, and Hispanic students all had higher average scores in 2006 than in 1994. Scores of Whites and Hispanic students rose (significantly) in 2006 in comparison to 2001. Parental Education: In comparison of both 8th and 12th grade groups (4th grade not available), students with parents with more education consistently and proportionally scored higher in history scores. Improvements in history scores were noted in each group when comparing scores from 1994 to 2006. However, when analyzing significant improvements in history scores (an improvement of 4 or more): 8th grade: 1. Students who reported that at least one parent had a college degree had a higher score in 2006 than in 1994. 2. In comparison of all areas between 2001 and 2006, there were no significant differences. 12th grade: 1. Students who reported that at least one parent had a college degree had a higher score in 2006 than in 1994. 2. Students who reported that neither parent finished high school had a higher score in 2006 than in 1994. 3. Students who reported that at least one parent had some education after high school had a higher score in 2006 than in 2001. Family Income: For both 4th and 8th grade history students from lower-income families (those eligible for either free or reduced-price school lunch), they scored lower on average than those from higher-income families. The score gap between students in the lowest income level (eligible for free lunch) and those in the highest level (not eligible) was 31 points for the 4th grade and 28 points for the 8th grade. The ultimate difference was not significant between the two groups.
 * **Grade level** || **Graduated College** || **Some Ed After HS** || **Finished HS** || **Did Not Finish HS** ||
 * **4th** || Data Not Available || Data Not Available || Data Not Available || Data Not Available ||
 * **8th** || 274 || 265 || 252 || 244 ||
 * **12th** || 300 || 290 || 278 || 268 ||
 * Grade level || **Free Lunch** || **Reduced Cost Lunch** || **Not Eligible** || **Information Not Available** ||
 * **4th** || 193 || 206 || 224 || 227 ||
 * **8th** || 245 || 256 || 273 || 281 ||

**4.** **Using the NAEP website, how does Michigan compare to your state in Writing for the 8th grade?**

2007 data:
 * Grade level || **Arizona** || **Michigan** || **National** ||
 * **8th** || 148 || 151 || 154 ||
 * **Basic level** || 85% || 86% || NA ||
 * **Proficient level** || 23% || 27% || NA ||
 * Data Information || Available from 1998 to 2007 || Available from 2002 to 2007 || Compilation comparable with any state ||

Both Michigan and Arizona scored below the National average in the 8th grade writing. Michigan scored higher than Arizona in this area. Both Michigan and Arizona improved scores from any previously scored year in comparison with 2007. There was no significant difference in Basic level scores between Michigan and Arizona, however there was a higher number of Michigan students performing at the Proficient level than from Arizona.

**5.** **Using the NAEP website, how does Michigan compare to your assigned state with respect to 9 yr. old students?**


 * 4th Grade Analysis: (2005 data):**
 * **Course / State** || **Arizona** || **Michigan** || **National** ||
 * **Math** || 230 || 236 || 239 ||
 * **Reading** || 210 || 218 || 220 ||
 * **Science** || 139 || 152 || 149 ||
 * **Writing** || Not available || Not available || Not available ||

In the area of Science: Arizona is below Michigan and the National scores. Michigan’s score (even though it is above the National score) is not considered to be significantly different than the National score. For the analysis for the areas of math and reading – please refer to analysis provided in the above sections. Writing data is only available for the 8th grade. When comparing the data between males and female scores in all areas noted above, I noted that Arizona is below the National average and Michigan scores (for both male and females). It is interesting to note that despite the above facts regarding Michigan’s average scores in comparison to the National average – Michigan females on average scored below the National average in math (but they were still above Arizona’s female average score). In all other areas, there was no significant difference between males and females in comparison to the National average (and they were above Arizona’s scores i.e. math, reading and science).

**6.** **Using the NAEP website, how does Michigan compare to your assigned state with respect to 13 yr. old students?**
 * 8th Grade Analysis: (2005 data):**
 * **Course / State** || **Arizona** || **Michigan** || **National** ||
 * **Math** || 277 || 278 || 282 ||
 * **Reading** || 258 || 262 || 262 ||
 * **Science** || 140 || 155 || 147 ||
 * **Writing** || 148 || 151 || 154 ||

In science, Arizona is lower than the National and Michigan averages (it is also lower than their own score from 2000). Michigan was higher than the National and Arizona scores in science. Michigan was not significantly different from its 2000 score in this area. For analysis of data in math, reading and writing for the 8th grade – please refer to analysis as noted above. When analyzing data between males and females, I realized that Arizona indicates scores that are below the national average in all areas (math, reading, science and writing). For Michigan, females scored below the National average in math and writing. Michigan males scored below the national average in writing. Male scores indicated no significant difference from the National average in math and reading (along with females for reading). Both Michigan males and females demonstrated higher than average scores in science (in comparison to the National average. It is interesting to note that there was no significant difference between Michigan and Arizona male scores in math, reading and writing; along with female scores in math. Michigan males scored higher than Arizona males in science. Michigan females scored higher in reading, science and writing (in comparison with Arizona females).

**7.** **Using the NAEP website, how does Michigan compare to your assigned state in Mathematics, Reading, Science, History, and Writing for 8th grade students when examining race/ethnicity (white and black)? To complete the task using the state comparison function (go to resources in the left-hand margin, then select data tools, then select state comparisons) select 8th grade, the content area, and the appropriate student group.**

** In Math and Reading: ** Arizona’s scores for both white and black students indicate no significant difference from the National average. Arizona’s scores are higher than Michigan’s in both categories. Michigan’s average scores for both white and black students are below the National average. ** In Science: ** Arizona’s scores for both white and black students indicate no significant difference from the National average. Michigan’s scores for both white and black students indicate higher than National (and Arizona) average scores. ** In Writing: ** Arizona’s scores for both white and black students (along with Michigans’s score for black students) indicate no significant difference from the National average. Michigan’s score for white students indicate a lower than National (and Arizona) average score. ** In History: ** Only National average score data is available for white and black students. As noted above, whites score higher than blacks in this area (as well as in all areas that data was collected and noted above).
 * || **Arizona White** || **Arizona Black** || **Michigan White** || **Michigan Black** || **National White** || **National Black** ||
 * **Math** || 292 || 269 || 286 || 246 || 292 || 260 ||
 * **Reading** || 270 || 249 || 268 || 238 || 271 || 245 ||
 * **Science** || 156 || 125 || 163 || 128 || 159 || 123 ||
 * **Writing** || 160 || 143 || 156 || 132 || 162 || 140 ||
 * **History** || No data || No data || No data || No data || 273 || 244 ||

**8.** **Using the MDE website for MEAP score and achievement gap trends, examine the 4 charts and provide an interpretation of the data.** When comparing average MEAP scores in Grade 8 Reading – the group category with All The Students scored highest, followed by Hispanic / Economically disadvantaged, then Black, then Limited English Proficient students and finally Students with Disabilities. It is important to note that there was no significant difference noted between Hispanic and Economically disadvantaged students for all years available (2005 -2009). Students with disabilities made the largest gains in average ‘gap achievement’ scores in reading for all years (2005 -2009), however their scores were still below all other group scores (except in 2007 where there was no significant difference noted with Limited English Proficient students). It is interesting to note that students that overall scored the lowest in reading throughout the available years of data consistently (and in reverse order) made the largest gains in their achievement gap results: Students with disabilities in the lead, followed by Limited English Proficient, then Hispanic and Economically disadvantaged (with no significant difference in scores) and finally Black. For the first year (2005) and the last year (2009), there was no significant difference in scores between Black, Economically disadvantaged and Hispanic groups. The Raw and Smooth gap closure rates indicate no significant in scores when comparing 2005 to 2009, however overall all areas noted a difference of approximately 2 (with the exception of Limited English Proficient students who showed no identifiable difference). When comparing the Percent Proficient MEAP scores in grade 8 Reading to the Average MEAP scores, the trends (of highest to lowest performing groups) are identical. The trends are also identical between the Percent Proficient MEAP Achievement Gap scores and the Average Achievement Gap scores with the exception of the ‘closure’ score amounts. Overall the Average Achievement Gap scores were rated ‘2’ (with the exception of Limited English Proficient students who showed no identifiable difference). The Percent Proficient MEAP Achievement Gap Smooth closure scores (which are more reliable than the Raw) indicate the following ranking of scores (listed highest to lowest): Hispanic, Black, Economically disadvantaged, Students with Disabilities. No significant difference in scores was noted between the Hispanic, Black, and Economically disadvantaged students and no significant difference in scores was noted between the Students with disabilities and Limited English Proficient students. The rankings are comparable between Raw and Smooth number closure scores.

Gains were noted in all groups when comparing 2005 to 2009 scores in both the Average and Percent Proficient groups. All groups indicated that achievement gap closure scores (for both Average and Percent Proficient) were improving with the exception of the Limited English Proficient Average MEAP group.

**9.** **Provide a general summary of your findings with respect to mathematics, science, reading, history, and writing, from the data analyzed.**

** History ** only provided National data. The information provided looked at Race/Ethnicity, Parental Education, and Family Income. In regards to Race/Ethnicity, the groups performed with Whites ranking the highest, followed by Asian/Pacific Islander, and Hispanic. Black and American Indian ranked lowest with no significant difference noted between their scores for both the 4th and 8th grades. When considering Parental Education: both 8th and 12th grade groups (4th grade not available), students with parents with more education consistently and proportionally scored higher in history scores. History students from lower-income families (for both 4th and 8th grades) scored lower on average than those from higher – income families. ** MEAP scores in 8th Grade Reading: ** I placed this area under History because I thought that the achievement gap trends in Reading were interesting when compared with the National History trend in regards to Race/Ethnicity. As noted above (in History): the Whites ranked highest, followed by the Asian/Pacific Islander, then the Hispanic and finally with the Black and American Indian. When ranking the MEAP Reading scores: the group category with ALL The Students scored highest (no White or Asian/Pacific Islander categories available), followed by the Hispanic/Economically disadvantaged, then Black (no American Indian category available), then Limited English Proficient students and finally Students with Disabilities. (It is also interesting to note that the category of Students with Disabilities is not listed under the History category. I wonder if this is related to the fact that history information could be read to a student with disabilities and therefore this group performance would not be significantly noted due to the accommodations provided?) ** Writing :** Both Michigan and Arizona scored below the National average in the 8th grade (4th grade data not available). When comparing Michigan to Arizona, Michigan scores were higher. ** Mathematics: ** For the 4th and 8th grades, both Arizona and Michigan performed below the National average. There was no significant difference noted between the two states for the 8th grade scores, with Michigan performing higher than Arizona in the 4th grade scores. ** Reading: **Michigan (in 4th and 8th grades) scored comparable to the National average in Reading (with no significant difference noted between them). Arizona (in 4th and 8th grades) scored below both the National average and Michigan in Reading. ** Science: ** Arizona (in 4th and 8th grades) scored below Michigan and the National average in Science. Michigan’s scores for 4th grade science were comparable to the National average and higher than the National average for the 8th grade (in Science). ** Overall Findings: **Both Michigan and Arizona scored below the National average in Writing and Mathematics with Michigan scoring higher than Arizona in Writing and 4th grade Mathematics. Arizona scored below Michigan and the National average in Reading and Science with Michigan’s scores comparable or higher than the National average (with higher score noted in 8th grade Science). Arizona males and females scored below the National average for both 4th and 8th grades in all available areas (scoring below Michigan for all available 4th grade scores). There was no significant difference between Arizona and Michigan male scores in Math, Reading, and Writing; along with female scores in Math. Michigan females scored higher in Reading, Science and Writing (in comparison to Arizona females). Michigan male scores indicated no significant difference from the National average in math and reading (along with females in reading), with higher than National average scores noted for both males and females in science. There were no significant differences noted between black and white student scores (for 8th grade Math, Reading, Science and Writing) in comparing Arizona to the National average. Michigan’s 8th grade science black and white students scored higher than National and Arizona students (which makes sense based on previous data). What is interesting to note is the comparison between Michigan and Arizona in regards to previous data and scores between black and white students. When analyzing 8th grade Math data, both Michigan and Arizona performed below the National average with no significant difference between them. However, Arizona’s scores for both blacks and whites were higher than Michigan’s. Another interesting fact is that in 8th grade Reading – Michigan scores were comparable to the National average with Arizona scores below both (Michigan and National); however, Arizona’s scores for blacks and whites were higher than Michigan’s. When considering 8th grade Writing scores, Michigan scores were higher than Arizona as a whole. However, Michigan’s score for white students indicate a lower than National and Arizona average. When realizing that the white students make up the largest single group of students – this analysis is intriguing. Could it indicate that certain nationalities take greater pride in certain scholastic areas than others, or that perhaps that they receive more attention or praise for certain things, or even perhaps that things that they can improve on their own (such as handwriting) that they spend more time or energy on? Gathering data is just one component. As data is gathered and compiled, it needs to be looked at and compared in meaningful ways to help us devise other questions that can aid us in helping all of our students succeed.