INCREASING ADVANCED & PROFICIENT … ADVANCED & PROFICIENT MATHEMATICS SKILLS ... authentic command of mathematical concepts, not making math harder or ... mathematics teaching and

INCREASING ADVANCED & PROFICIENT MATHEMATICS SKILLS WITH

THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDSAN EXAMINATION OF SIX WISCONSIN SCHOOL DISTRICTS

ABSTRACTIn 2010, six Wisconsin School Districts adopted the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. After three years of using the standards, all school districts had increased educational outcomes with one realizing increases that exceeded state averages for mathematics skill by more than 10 percent.

— Tim SchererORIGO Education

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTIONObjectives

THE CREATION OF THE COMMON CORE STANDARDSThe Common Core Math Standards

Key Changes

THE COMMON CORE GOES TO WISCONSIN

ANALYSIS

FINDINGS

DISCUSSIONS

CONCLUSIONS

APPENDIX A. AN EXPLANATION OF THE KEY CHANGES

THAT COMMON CORE INTRODUCES

APPENDIX B. THE WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONS

FOR MATHEMATICS

APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC

INFORMATION FOR EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT

APPENDIX D. SCHOOL DISTRICT RESULTS OF THE

WISCONSIN KNOWLEDGE AND CONCEPTS EXAMINATIONS AND ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT

FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

APPENDIX E. STATEWIDE AVERAGES IN ADVANCED PLUS

PROFICIENT MATHEMATICS SKILLS 2012–2014

WORKS CITED

iii

1

2

3

3

4

4

5

6

7

9

11

12

INTRODUCTIONThe United States performance in the subject of mathematics has historically been problematic. Although a February 2015 Pew Research Center report showed U.S. students are scoring higher on nationwide math assessments than they did two decades ago, they still rank around average when compared internationally, and behind many other advanced industrialized nations. While there is much that is good and to be celebrated in U.S. schools, nevertheless, mathematically, they have lost ground to many international peers in this subject. Put simply, U.S. students’ performance in mathematics is one area that is all too frequently cited as having opportunity for improvement (Desilver, 2015).

Corestandards.org, the official website for the Common Core Standards, states that previous research on mathematics education in high-performing countries around the world has consistently shown that to improve mathematics education in the U.S., educators must focus more deeply on the major topics at each grade level along with coherently linking these topics across the grades. In response to these findings, in 2009, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM) were developed to help guide mathematics education with the goal of improving US performance (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015).

To implement these new standards, the U.S. has a wealth of excellent and extremely dedicated teachers with a passion for helping students succeed academically. However, with so many developers of education resources flooding the market with little more than slightly revised products, school districts are finding it hard to determine which materials will truly help them address the goals of the Common Core Math Standards. Moreover, selecting these materials is a complicated and lengthy process.

An article by Hung-Hsi Wu, featured in the American Educator, highlights the issue, pointing out that:

“…developers have yet to recognize that the Common Core Standards are radically different from their predecessors. Most (if not possibly all) textbook developers are

only slightly revising their texts before declaring them aligned with the Common

Core State Mathematics Standards” (Wu 2011).

Wu’s statement is further supported by a quote from Gabriela Mafi, Superintendent of Garden Grove Unified, in Orange County, who said in a 2015 Edsource.org report that:

“The biggest challenge has been the lack of textbooks and materials.”

OBJECTIVESWith this information in mind, the objectives of this paper are to:

Provide an overview of the history and development of the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

Illustrate the key changes that the CCSSM bring to educators.

Present an overview of the implementation of the CCSSM in the State of Wisconsin.

Show the effect the CCSSM had on advanced plus proficient mathematics skills in six Wisconsin school districts after the adoption of the CCSSM-aligned product, ORIGO Stepping Stones.

iii

KEY CHANGESWhile it is true that the CCSSM do build on the best existing standards, they also introduce significant shifts in educational practices in the U.S., requiring educators to learn new ways of instructing students. According to Corestandards.org, the following is a summary of the key shifts that the Common Core dictates:

1. GREATER FOCUS ON FEWER TOPICSRather than racing to cover many topics in a “mile-wide and inch-deep” curriculum, the standards ask math teachers to focus more deeply on the major work at each grade.

2. GREATER COHERENCE AMONG TOPICSMathematics is too often looked upon as a list of disconnected topics, tricks, or mnemonics. In fact, it is a coherent body of knowledge consisting of interconnected concepts. Therefore, the standards are designed around coherent progressions from grade to grade. Learning is carefully connected across grades so that students can build new understanding onto foundations built in previous years.

The CCSSM were developed as a response to the historical underperformance of U.S. students in mathematics. In 2009, state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, met and decided that change was needed, if improvement was to be seen. Their goal was to develop common, nationwide, college- and career-ready K–12 standards for mathematics (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2015).

Collaborating alongside their membership organizations, which included the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center), and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), new expectations for what every child should know and be able to do after graduating from high school were developed.

With the expectations established, the next goal was creating the content standards for grades K–12 that would align with this newly-created criteria. To achieve this objective, states worked with groups of educators, representatives of higher education, and other professionals in order to develop and write the new standards to meet these expectations. This included significant input from the public sector.

Using a combination of high-quality state standards, the most important international models for mathematics practice, scholars, departments of education, educators, business leaders, and parents, the CCSSM was established. A validation committee was then appointed to review the final standards.

THE COMMON CORE MATH STANDARDSIn contrast to the fractured nature of many previous standards, the CCSSM stress the conceptual understanding of key ideas and continually returning to organizing principles of the subject including concepts such as place value and the laws of arithmetic. By concentrating on a clear set of math skills and concepts, students are continually encouraged to solve real-world problems in an organized way during the school year, and across academic grade levels.

A common misconception about the CCSSM is that they dictate curriculum and teaching methods. Common Core lays the foundation for what should be known, not how it should be taught. CCSSM empower teachers to transform these broader standards into an engaging and meaningful learning experience for all their students.

THE CREATION OF THE COMMON CORE STATE STANDARDS FOR MATHEMATICS

3. GREATER RIGORRigor refers to deep, authentic command of mathematical concepts, not making math harder or introducing topics at earlier grades. There are three aspects of rigor in the major work of each grade: conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application.

Conceptual understanding is described as accessing concepts from a number of perspectives in order to see math as more than a set of mnemonics or discrete procedures.

Procedural skills and fluency are seen, for example, as understanding single-digit multiplication, in order to have access to more complex concepts and procedures.

Application means students using math in situations that require mathematical knowledge and correctly applying this knowledge. This is dependent on conceptual understanding, procedural skills, and fluency.

A full explanation of these foundations can be found in APPENDIX A.

1

On June 2, 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction formally adopted the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics, and by proxy, the changes previously outlined therein.

The WDPI’s vision for the CCSSM is: “…ensuring every child is a graduate who has successfully completed a rigorous, meaningful, 21st century education that will prepare him or her for careers, college and citizenship.” (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2011). Even though this vision aligns with the broader CCSSM goals, the WDPI went further by creating four of its own foundations to direct and support the teaching and learning of mathematics in Wisconsin school districts. These are:

1. Every student must have access to and engage in meaningful, challenging, and rigorous mathematics.

2. Mathematics should be experienced as coherent, connected, intrinsically interesting and relevant.

3. Problem solving, understanding, reasoning, and sense making are at the heart of mathematics teaching and learning and are central to mathematical proficiency.

4. Effective mathematics classroom practices include the use of collaboration, discourse and reflection to engage students in the study of important mathematics.

A full explanation of these foundations can be found in APPENDIX B.

Once Wisconsin educators embraced the fundamental changes set forth in the CCSSM, they were now tasked with finding the best tools, technologies, and textbooks to transform an abstract vision of the future into clear, tangible, real-world academic results. These classroom resources are the key tools educators use to help ensure that their teachers are able to meet the expectations set forth in the CCSSM, i.e. textbooks, support materials, and professional learning opportunities. Selecting these resources can be a lengthy and difficult process. Frequently, it requires administrators and teachers to agree on many differing, and sometimes conflicting, criteria. Many companies meet with educators and school district representatives and promise that their products will create a classroom where

math makes more sense for students while simultaneously failing to reveal that their products are merely hastily updated versions of previous content that does not align with the most basic aspects of the CCSSM.

In 2012, after much deliberation, six Wisconsin school districts (Port Washington-Saukville, Muskego-Norway, De Pere, Waukesha, and Grafton) selected ORIGO Stepping Stones as their educational resource materials. Interviews with educators post-implementation revealed the criteria used when deciding on their Common Core resource materials. These included:

Strong alignment with the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics.

An innovative curriculum.

Access to multiple resources throughout the program.

Access to the most current version of educational resources.

A continually improving program. ORIGO Stepping Stones was selected because it was believed that the product met these requirements in the following ways:

It was written to reflect both the content and intent of the CCSSM. The engaging material fosters students’ thinking and reasoning skills through innovative curriculum, enabling educators to effectively assess deep understanding and skill. It provides multiple online and print resources to engage all students, and differentiate classroom instruction. The continual updates through Stepping Stones Online provide a cost-effective solution to core math implementation, while assisting in the recommended shift to digital instructional materials.

The last point further aligns with The State Education Technology Directors Association which recommends that, “…state and districts commit to beginning the shift from print to digital instructional materials with the next major adoption cycle, completing the transition by no later than the 2017-18 school year.” (Fletcher, G., Schaauser, D, & Levin, D., 2012).

THE COMMON CORE GOES TO WISCONSIN

2

48%

90%

0%

10%

20%30%40%50%60%70%

80%

46%

ANALYSISThree years after implementing the CCSSM, an analysis of these school districts’ advanced plus proficient mathematics skills was undertaken. The analysis compares the percentage of grade four students with advanced plus proficient mathematics skills for academic years 2012 through 2014. The percentages used were taken from the WDPI District and School Report Cards website, as reported by the WDPI. The WDPI derived their percentages through administration of the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE) and the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD). Each district’s report card used in this document is available here: https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

It should be noted that the performance levels listed by the WDPI have been retroactively adjusted by the WDPI to align the WKCE

mathematics results with the college and career readiness benchmarks found in the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP). The NAEP is written by the National Center for Education Statistics, the primary federal entity for collecting and analyzing data related to education in the U.S. It is part of the U.S. Department of Education and the Institute of Education Sciences. Also, note that in these results, the WAA-SwD results have not been adjusted. The state-wide average for Wisconsin was calculated by examining the Wisconsin District and School Performance Reports, which are also published by the WDPI and available at: https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/sdpr/spr.action

No socioeconomic or demographic information is available for test takers of the WKCE. However, individual district demographic information can be found in APPENDIX C.

The findings show that all six school districts that adopted the CCSSM and ORIGO Stepping Stones saw an increased number of grade four students with advanced plus proficient mathematics skills. As illustrated in Figure 1, the largest school growth was found in the Muskego-Norway School district (13 percent). The average increase across

all the school districts combined was 6 percent. This is significant because this increase is three times higher than the statewide average increase from 2012 to 2014. Two of the three schools that incorporated professional learning sessions along with their implementation (Muskego-Norway and Grafton) saw the largest gains.

FINDINGS

Figure 1. A Comparison of School Districts Advanced Plus Proficient Mathematics SkillsData for these years can be found in APPENDIX D. and APPENDIX E.

4th Grade Districts Using Stepping Stones vs. Statewide Averages in Mathematics Proficiency FAY 2012–2014

Students with Advanced Plus Proficient Skills 2013–2014Students with Advanced Plus Proficient Skills 2012–2013

3

DISCUSSION

Developing and adopting the CCSSM was an important first step toward the goal of increasing mathematics performance in the U.S. However, without support from the best tools, technologies, textbooks, and professional learning for teachers, realizing the full potential of the content and intentions of the CCSSM is not likely to occur.

In 2010, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction formally adopted the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics with a vision that every child has successfully completed a rigorous, meaningful, 21st century education

that will prepare him or her for careers, college, and citizenship. While creating a vision and underpinning foundations is easy, delivering the results is the hard part.

Six Wisconsin school districts combined passionate teachers with the CCSSM, and some of the best educational resources available: ORIGO Stepping Stones and ORIGO Professional Learning Services. This enabled the six districts to see an average of six percent gains in advanced plus proficient mathematics skills, tripling the statewide average of two percent.

CONCLUSIONS

It is conceded correlations do not necessarily equal causation. Some of the limitations of this paper include not knowing specific information on individual test takers, the skills of each teacher, and a variety of other factors that may contribute to mathematics proficiency. There are, nevertheless, consistencies that can be identified among the school districts, and from this information, conclusions can be inferred.

The main consistency, in this case, is the educational resource utilized to implement the CCSSM in these school districts. It should be noted that three out of five of the school districts, including the school district that realized the largest gains (Muskego-Norway), did utilize ORIGO Professional Learning Services.

It is believed that part of the success of these six school districts comes from using ORIGO Stepping Stones. Because it was written and developed by a team of experts in order to provide teachers with access to a world-class elementary Common Core math program, it is not simply a rehash of an existing product. ORIGO Stepping Stones enables students and teachers alike, to realize the ambitions of the CCSSM through a strong mathematical foundation, a solid understanding of concepts, a high degree of procedural skill and fluency, and the ability to apply the math they

know to solve problems inside and outside the classroom.

The team of authors and consultants at ORIGO utilized all available educational research to create a unique program with the rigor necessary to ensure that students develop the deep, authentic command of mathematical concepts, including conceptual understanding, procedural skills, fluency, and application. Combined with a focus on conceptual understanding and learning, ORIGO Stepping Stones engenders mathematical creativity in students by equipping them with the skills and confidence to realize that there is often more than one way to solve problems.

Put simply, the ORIGO team chose to use a smarter approach to the CCSSM. It is believed that when this approach is used in combination with a passionate teacher, students’ thinking and reasoning skills can truly be developed. This not only enables educators to truly assess if students possess the coherence of mathematics that is required to build on previous learning, but also the command of mathematical concepts that will enable them to progress academically.

4

GREATER FOCUS ON FEWER TOPICSThe Common Core calls for greater focus in mathematics. Rather than racing to cover many topics in a “mile-wide, inch-deep” curriculum, the standards ask math teachers to significantly narrow and deepen the way time and energy are spent in the classroom. This means focusing deeply on the major work of each grade as follows:

In grades K–2: concepts, skills, and problem solving related to addition and subtraction. In grades 3–5: concepts, skills, and problem solving related to multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions. In grade 6: ratios and proportional relationships, and early algebraic expressions and equations. In grade 7: ratios and proportional relationships, and arithmetic of rational numbers. In grade 8: linear algebra and linear functions.

This focus will help students gain strong foundations, including a solid understanding of concepts, a high degree of procedural skill and fluency, and the ability to apply the math they know to solve problems inside and outside the classroom.

COHERENCE Mathematics is not a list of disconnected topics, tricks, or mnemonics; it is a coherent body of knowledge made up of interconnected concepts. Therefore, the standards are designed around coherent progressions from grade to grade. Learning is carefully connected across grades so that students can build new understanding onto foundations built in previous years. For example, in 4th grade, students must “apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication

to multiply a fraction by a whole number.” This extends to 5th grade, when students are expected to build on that skill to “apply and extend previous understandings of multiplication to multiply a fraction or whole number by a fraction.” Each standard is not a new event, but an extension of previous learning.

RIGORRigor refers to deep, authentic command of mathematical concepts, not making math harder or introducing topics at earlier grades. To help students meet the standards, educators will need to pursue, with equal intensity, three aspects of rigor in the major work of each grade: conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application.

Conceptual understanding: The standards call for conceptual understanding of key concepts, such as place value and ratios. Students must be able to access concepts from a number of perspectives in order to see math as more than a set of mnemonics or discrete procedures.

Procedural skills and fluency: The standards call for speed and accuracy in calculation. Students must practice core functions, such as single-digit multiplication, in order to have access to more complex concepts and procedures. Fluency must be addressed in the classroom or through supporting materials, as some students might require more practice than others.

Application: The standards call for students to use math in situations that require mathematical knowledge. Correctly applying mathematical knowledge depends on students having a solid conceptual understanding and procedural fluency. (National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010).

APPENDIX A. AN EXPLANATION OF THE KEY CHANGES THAT COMMON CORE INTRODUCES

5

Wisconsin Foundations for Mathematics Wisconsin’s Guiding Principles for Teaching and Learning provide important guidance for the mathematics classroom. Within the discipline of mathematics, each of the six principles has specific implications for equity, pedagogy, instruction, and assessment. Mathematics educators should consider how the six guiding principles influence their teaching. The following foundations provide direction for the teaching and learning of mathematics in Wisconsin.

Every student must have access to and engage in meaningful, challenging, and rigorous mathematics. Equity in mathematics education requires recognition that the standards must be kept consistent while being flexible in instructional approach and methods of assessment to accommodate the strengths and weaknesses of all students. In order to optimize student learning, the high bar that is set for all should not be moved for some students; instead, the delivery system must be varied to allow access for all. Schools and classrooms need to be organized to convey the message that all students can learn mathematics and should be expected to achieve. Effective mathematics classroom practice involves assessing students’ prior knowledge, designing tasks that allow flexibility of approach, and orchestrating classroom discussions that allow every student to successfully access and learn important mathematics.

Mathematics should be experienced as coherent, connected, intrinsically interesting, and relevant. The PK-12 curriculum should integrate and sequence important mathematical ideas so that students can make sense of mathematics and develop a thorough understanding of concepts. The curriculum should build from grade to grade and topic to topic so that students have

experiences that are coherent. The connections of mathematical ideas in a well-designed curriculum allow students to see mathematics as important in its own right, as well as a useful subject that has relevant applications to the real world and to other disciplines. Problem solving, understanding, reasoning, and sense-making are at the heart of mathematics teaching and learning and are central to mathematical proficiency. Using problem solving as a vehicle for teaching mathematics not only develops knowledge and skills, but also helps students understand and make sense of mathematics. By infusing reasoning and sense-making in daily mathematics instruction, students are able to see how new concepts connect with existing knowledge and they are able to solidify their understanding. Students who are mathematically proficient see that mathematics makes sense and show a willingness to persevere. They possess both understanding of mathematical concepts and fluency with procedural skills.

Effective mathematics classroom practices include the use of collaboration, discourse, and reflection to engage students in the study of important mathematics. Collaboration and classroom discourse can significantly deepen student understanding of mathematical concepts. In addition to teacher-student dialogue, peer collaboration and individual reflection must also be emphasized. Representing, thinking, discussing, agreeing, and disagreeing are central to what students learn about mathematics. Posing questions and tasks that elicit, engage, and challenge students’ thinking, as well as asking students to clarify their thinking and justify solutions and solution paths should be evident in all mathematics classrooms. (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2011).

APPENDIX B. THE WISCONSIN FOUNDATIONS FOR MATHEMATICS

6

PORT WASHINGTON-SAUKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT

Grades: K4–12Locale: TownEnrollment: 2,687

Race/EthnicityAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native: 0.6%Asian or Pacific Islander: 1.9%Black Not Hispanic: 3.4%Hispanic: 5.0%White Not Hispanic: 89.1%

Student GroupsStudents with Disabilities: 13.3%Economically Disadvantaged: 25.4%Limited English Proficiency: 1.2%

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Port Washington, 2015 pp. 1)

MUSKEGO-NORWAY SCHOOL DISTRICT

Grades: K4–12Locale: SuburbEnrollment: 4,886

Race/EthnicityAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native: 0.3%Asian or Pacific Islander: 2.1%Black Not Hispanic 1.3%Hispanic: 4.1%White Not Hispanic: 92.1%


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Muskego, 2015 pp. 1)

DE PERE SCHOOL DISTRICT Grades: K4–12Locale: SuburbEnrollment: 4,148

Race/EthnicityAmerican Indian or Alaskan Native: 0.9%Asian or Pacific Islander: 2.4%Black Not Hispanic: 3.1%Hispanic: 3.9%White Not Hispanic: 89.7%


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, De Pere, 2015 pp. 1)

GRAFTON SCHOOL DISTRICTGrades: PK–12Locale: SuburbEnrollment: 2,099

Race/EthnicityAmerican Indian or Alaska Native: .08%Asian or Pacific Islander: 4.0%Black not Hispanic: 3.1%Hispanic: 3.9%White not Hispanic: 88.1%


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Grafton, 2015 pp. 1)

APPENDIX C. DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC INFORMATION FOR EACH SCHOOL DISTRICT

7

WAUKESHA SCHOOL DISTRICTGrades: PK–12Locale: CityEnrollment: 13,678

Race/EthnicityAmerican Indian or Alaska Native: 0.6%Asian or Pacific Islander: 4.6%Black not Hispanic: 6.4%Hispanic: 19.6%White not Hispanic: 68.9%


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Waukesha, 2015 pp. 1)

PULASKI COMMUNITYGrades: K4–12Locale: TownEnrollment: 3,690

Race/EthnicityAmerican Indian or Alaska Native: 3.1%Asian or Pacific Islander: 1.3%Black not Hispanic: 1.6%Hispanic: 2.3%White not Hispanic: 91.6%


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Pulaski, 2015 pp. 1)

8

APPENDIX D. SCHOOL DISTRICT RESULTS OF THE WISCONSIN KNOWLEDGE AND CONCEPTS EXAMINATIONS AND ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

9

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Grafton, 2015 pp. 18)

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction | dpi.wi.gov Page18

The data below are provided for informational purposes only and are not used to calculate a district's Accountability Score. The data below include both WKCE (Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations) and WAA-SwD (Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities) results.

Performance levels have been retroactively adjusted to align WKCE reading and mathematics results with college and career readiness benchmarks based on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) performance levels. Performance levels for WAA-SwD have not been adjusted.

Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested

Proficient and Advanced

StudentsTested


131

125

131

134

136

217

58.8%

49.6%

51.9%

35.1%

61.8%

43.8%

156

135

136

130

156

167

50.6%

57.8%

48.5%

49.2%

46.8%

55.1%

7 155 47.1% 146 43.8%

StudentsTested


126

127

127

144

132

173

48.4%

58.3%

53.5%

51.4%

49.2%

48.6%

137 58.4%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


128

157

136

139

156

172

60.9%

46.5%

52.9%

44.6%

54.5%

51.2%

114

132

155

138

146

180

57.0%

56.1%

51.6%

43.5%

50.0%

55.6%

144 45.8% 145 44.8%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


131

125

131

134

136

217

74.8%

71.2%

75.6%

65.7%

59.6%

50.2%

156

135

136

130

156

167

75.6%

72.6%

73.5%

69.2%

62.2%

53.9%

7 155 63.2% 146 71.2%

StudentsTested


126

127

127

144

132

173

81.7%

70.1%

66.1%

77.8%

62.9%

49.1%

137 67.9%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


128

157

136

139

156

172

85.9%

67.5%

75.0%

69.8%

62.2%

52.9%

114

132

155

138

146

180

74.6%

76.5%

67.7%

65.2%

55.5%

63.3%

144 59.7% 145 67.6%

District Results: Wisconsin Student Assessment System

GraftonDistrict Report Card Detail | 2013-14 | Assessment Trends

The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is administered to 4th and 8th grade students every two years in a representative sample of schools nationwide. These data are provided for informational purposes only and are not used to calculate a district's Accountability Score.

WisconsinNation

40%34%

8th Grade Percent Proficient and Advanced

36%34%

GroupMathematics Reading


47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading

State Results: National Assessment of Educational Progress 2013

Report cards for different types of schools or districts should not be directly compared.

FINAL - PUBLIC REPORT - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE

2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


131

125

131

134

136

217

58.8%

49.6%

51.9%

35.1%

61.8%

43.8%

156

135

136

130

156

167

50.6%

57.8%

48.5%

49.2%

46.8%

55.1%

7 155 47.1% 146 43.8%

StudentsTested


126

127

127

144

132

173

48.4%

58.3%

53.5%

51.4%

49.2%

48.6%

137 58.4%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


128

157

136

139

156

172

60.9%

46.5%

52.9%

44.6%

54.5%

51.2%

114

132

155

138

146

180

57.0%

56.1%

51.6%

43.5%

50.0%

55.6%

144 45.8% 145 44.8%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


131

125

131

134

136

217

74.8%

71.2%

75.6%

65.7%

59.6%

50.2%

156

135

136

130

156

167

75.6%

72.6%

73.5%

69.2%

62.2%

53.9%

7 155 63.2% 146 71.2%

StudentsTested


126

127

127

144

132

173

81.7%

70.1%

66.1%

77.8%

62.9%

49.1%

137 67.9%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


128

157

136

139

156

172

85.9%

67.5%

75.0%

69.8%

62.2%

52.9%

114

132

155

138

146

180

74.6%

76.5%

67.7%

65.2%

55.5%

63.3%

144 59.7% 145 67.6%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


131

125

131

134

136

217

58.8%

49.6%

51.9%

35.1%

61.8%

43.8%

156

135

136

130

156

167

50.6%

57.8%

48.5%

49.2%

46.8%

55.1%

7 155 47.1% 146 43.8%

StudentsTested


126

127

127

144

132

173

48.4%

58.3%

53.5%

51.4%

49.2%

48.6%

137 58.4%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


128

157

136

139

156

172

60.9%

46.5%

52.9%

44.6%

54.5%

51.2%

114

132

155

138

146

180

57.0%

56.1%

51.6%

43.5%

50.0%

55.6%

144 45.8% 145 44.8%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


131

125

131

134

136

217

74.8%

71.2%

75.6%

65.7%

59.6%

50.2%

156

135

136

130

156

167

75.6%

72.6%

73.5%

69.2%

62.2%

53.9%

7 155 63.2% 146 71.2%

StudentsTested


126

127

127

144

132

173

81.7%

70.1%

66.1%

77.8%

62.9%

49.1%

137 67.9%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


128

157

136

139

156

172

85.9%

67.5%

75.0%

69.8%

62.2%

52.9%

114

132

155

138

146

180

74.6%

76.5%

67.7%

65.2%

55.5%

63.3%

144 59.7% 145 67.6%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10

District Report Card Detail 2013-14 | Assessment Trends




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


164

164

187

192

178

192

50.6%

53.0%

50.8%

39.1%

40.4%

44.8%

148

168

162

184

178

205

43.9%

51.2%

50.6%

43.5%

34.3%

50.7%

7 177 44.1% 195 50.3%

StudentsTested


167

187

189

171

186

216

50.9%

51.9%

42.9%

39.8%

33.3%

54.6%

180 47.8%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


177

147

158

163

184

192

52.5%

42.2%

43.0%

47.2%

46.2%

50.0%

171

186

154

160

188

203

45.0%

53.8%

42.9%

43.8%

42.6%

51.2%

183 56.3% 167 57.5%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


164

164

187

192

178

192

51.2%

59.1%

55.6%

55.2%

49.4%

51.6%

148

171

162

184

178

205

57.4%

59.6%

61.1%

50.0%

42.1%

49.3%

7 177 38.4% 195 51.3%

StudentsTested


167

187

189

171

185

216

64.7%

59.9%

46.6%

41.5%

46.5%

53.2%

180 46.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


177

147

158

163

184

192

54.8%

53.7%

57.6%

58.9%

51.6%

51.6%

171

186

154

160

188

203

60.2%

60.2%

51.3%

50.0%

58.0%

50.7%

183 53.6% 167 59.3%


Port Washington-SaukvilleDistrict Report Card Detail | 2013-14 | Assessment Trends


WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


164

164

187

192

178

192

50.6%

53.0%

50.8%

39.1%

40.4%

44.8%

148

168

162

184

178

205

43.9%

51.2%

50.6%

43.5%

34.3%

50.7%

7 177 44.1% 195 50.3%

StudentsTested


167

187

189

171

186

216

50.9%

51.9%

42.9%

39.8%

33.3%

54.6%

180 47.8%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


177

147

158

163

184

192

52.5%

42.2%

43.0%

47.2%

46.2%

50.0%

171

186

154

160

188

203

45.0%

53.8%

42.9%

43.8%

42.6%

51.2%

183 56.3% 167 57.5%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


164

164

187

192

178

192

51.2%

59.1%

55.6%

55.2%

49.4%

51.6%

148

171

162

184

178

205

57.4%

59.6%

61.1%

50.0%

42.1%

49.3%

7 177 38.4% 195 51.3%

StudentsTested


167

187

189

171

185

216

64.7%

59.9%

46.6%

41.5%

46.5%

53.2%

180 46.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


177

147

158

163

184

192

54.8%

53.7%

57.6%

58.9%

51.6%

51.6%

171

186

154

160

188

203

60.2%

60.2%

51.3%

50.0%

58.0%

50.7%

183 53.6% 167 59.3%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


164

164

187

192

178

192

50.6%

53.0%

50.8%

39.1%

40.4%

44.8%

148

168

162

184

178

205

43.9%

51.2%

50.6%

43.5%

34.3%

50.7%

7 177 44.1% 195 50.3%

StudentsTested


167

187

189

171

186

216

50.9%

51.9%

42.9%

39.8%

33.3%

54.6%

180 47.8%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


177

147

158

163

184

192

52.5%

42.2%

43.0%

47.2%

46.2%

50.0%

171

186

154

160

188

203

45.0%

53.8%

42.9%

43.8%

42.6%

51.2%

183 56.3% 167 57.5%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


164

164

187

192

178

192

51.2%

59.1%

55.6%

55.2%

49.4%

51.6%

148

171

162

184

178

205

57.4%

59.6%

61.1%

50.0%

42.1%

49.3%

7 177 38.4% 195 51.3%

StudentsTested


167

187

189

171

185

216

64.7%

59.9%

46.6%

41.5%

46.5%

53.2%

180 46.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


177

147

158

163

184

192

54.8%

53.7%

57.6%

58.9%

51.6%

51.6%

171

186

154

160

188

203

60.2%

60.2%

51.3%

50.0%

58.0%

50.7%

183 53.6% 167 59.3%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Port Washington, 2015 pp. 18)





Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


292

322

334

356

327

443

49.7%

50.0%

37.7%

41.0%

47.4%

50.8%

358

298

326

338

392

398

47.5%

50.7%

40.8%

42.0%

38.0%

63.1%

7 384 41.1% 369 46.6%

StudentsTested


310

330

351

366

338

416

45.8%

46.1%

35.9%

42.1%

41.7%

54.3%

327 45.0%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


319

368

291

322

370

366

52.4%

43.8%

39.5%

42.9%

49.5%

50.3%

312

327

371

304

347

419

42.9%

54.7%

36.9%

43.1%

40.6%

58.9%

344 36.3% 336 50.0%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


292

322

334

356

327

443

69.5%

71.4%

65.6%

71.9%

54.7%

65.2%

358

298

326

338

392

398

74.3%

73.8%

62.6%

66.3%

59.9%

63.8%

7 384 60.4% 369 56.1%

StudentsTested


310

330

351

366

338

418

75.2%

72.1%

60.7%

66.9%

54.1%

56.0%

327 54.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


319

368

291

322

370

366

73.7%

62.0%

60.8%

68.6%

57.6%

66.4%

312

327

371

304

347

419

72.4%

74.6%

52.0%

63.8%

67.1%

67.1%

344 62.5% 336 61.9%


Muskego-NorwayDistrict Report Card Detail | 2013-14 | Assessment Trends


WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Muskego, 2015 pp. 18)





Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


292

322

334

356

327

443

49.7%

50.0%

37.7%

41.0%

47.4%

50.8%

358

298

326

338

392

398

47.5%

50.7%

40.8%

42.0%

38.0%

63.1%

7 384 41.1% 369 46.6%

StudentsTested


310

330

351

366

338

416

45.8%

46.1%

35.9%

42.1%

41.7%

54.3%

327 45.0%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


319

368

291

322

370

366

52.4%

43.8%

39.5%

42.9%

49.5%

50.3%

312

327

371

304

347

419

42.9%

54.7%

36.9%

43.1%

40.6%

58.9%

344 36.3% 336 50.0%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


292

322

334

356

327

443

69.5%

71.4%

65.6%

71.9%

54.7%

65.2%

358

298

326

338

392

398

74.3%

73.8%

62.6%

66.3%

59.9%

63.8%

7 384 60.4% 369 56.1%

StudentsTested


310

330

351

366

338

418

75.2%

72.1%

60.7%

66.9%

54.1%

56.0%

327 54.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


319

368

291

322

370

366

73.7%

62.0%

60.8%

68.6%

57.6%

66.4%

312

327

371

304

347

419

72.4%

74.6%

52.0%

63.8%

67.1%

67.1%

344 62.5% 336 61.9%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


292

322

334

356

327

443

49.7%

50.0%

37.7%

41.0%

47.4%

50.8%

358

298

326

338

392

398

47.5%

50.7%

40.8%

42.0%

38.0%

63.1%

7 384 41.1% 369 46.6%

StudentsTested


310

330

351

366

338

416

45.8%

46.1%

35.9%

42.1%

41.7%

54.3%

327 45.0%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


319

368

291

322

370

366

52.4%

43.8%

39.5%

42.9%

49.5%

50.3%

312

327

371

304

347

419

42.9%

54.7%

36.9%

43.1%

40.6%

58.9%

344 36.3% 336 50.0%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


292

322

334

356

327

443

69.5%

71.4%

65.6%

71.9%

54.7%

65.2%

358

298

326

338

392

398

74.3%

73.8%

62.6%

66.3%

59.9%

63.8%

7 384 60.4% 369 56.1%

StudentsTested


310

330

351

366

338

418

75.2%

72.1%

60.7%

66.9%

54.1%

56.0%

327 54.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


319

368

291

322

370

366

73.7%

62.0%

60.8%

68.6%

57.6%

66.4%

312

327

371

304

347

419

72.4%

74.6%

52.0%

63.8%

67.1%

67.1%

344 62.5% 336 61.9%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Waukesha, 2015 pp. 18)




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


850

832

844

853

846

984

37.2%

33.3%

35.2%

37.7%

43.3%

34.7%

863

837

842

849

860

919

33.7%

36.1%

34.7%

35.7%

32.8%

43.9%

7 816 37.5% 881 39.3%

StudentsTested


827

849

858

808

817

980

32.6%

35.0%

35.1%

39.0%

30.1%

43.3%

785 41.4%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


850

818

829

815

903

942

35.3%

36.3%

36.4%

33.4%

41.4%

42.5%

836

845

823

820

879

929

34.7%

35.9%

34.8%

37.3%

34.7%

45.0%

868 39.1% 838 39.5%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


855

837

848

853

846

985

49.0%

41.5%

41.5%

53.3%

45.7%

44.3%

863

838

843

849

859

918

52.4%

51.4%

47.1%

45.9%

47.8%

45.6%

7 816 44.7% 881 46.5%

StudentsTested


844

857

862

809

822

982

53.2%

47.5%

43.6%

50.1%

42.3%

42.4%

786 49.7%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


849

819

829

815

903

942

48.6%

48.4%

46.2%

56.2%

45.4%

52.2%

836

845

824

820

879

928

52.8%

51.8%

49.0%

49.6%

46.4%

48.4%

867 47.2% 838 50.7%


WaukeshaDistrict Report Card Detail | 2013-14 | Assessment Trends


WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


850

832

844

853

846

984

37.2%

33.3%

35.2%

37.7%

43.3%

34.7%

863

837

842

849

860

919

33.7%

36.1%

34.7%

35.7%

32.8%

43.9%

7 816 37.5% 881 39.3%

StudentsTested


827

849

858

808

817

980

32.6%

35.0%

35.1%

39.0%

30.1%

43.3%

785 41.4%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


850

818

829

815

903

942

35.3%

36.3%

36.4%

33.4%

41.4%

42.5%

836

845

823

820

879

929

34.7%

35.9%

34.8%

37.3%

34.7%

45.0%

868 39.1% 838 39.5%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


855

837

848

853

846

985

49.0%

41.5%

41.5%

53.3%

45.7%

44.3%

863

838

843

849

859

918

52.4%

51.4%

47.1%

45.9%

47.8%

45.6%

7 816 44.7% 881 46.5%

StudentsTested


844

857

862

809

822

982

53.2%

47.5%

43.6%

50.1%

42.3%

42.4%

786 49.7%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


849

819

829

815

903

942

48.6%

48.4%

46.2%

56.2%

45.4%

52.2%

836

845

824

820

879

928

52.8%

51.8%

49.0%

49.6%

46.4%

48.4%

867 47.2% 838 50.7%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


850

832

844

853

846

984

37.2%

33.3%

35.2%

37.7%

43.3%

34.7%

863

837

842

849

860

919

33.7%

36.1%

34.7%

35.7%

32.8%

43.9%

7 816 37.5% 881 39.3%

StudentsTested


827

849

858

808

817

980

32.6%

35.0%

35.1%

39.0%

30.1%

43.3%

785 41.4%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


850

818

829

815

903

942

35.3%

36.3%

36.4%

33.4%

41.4%

42.5%

836

845

823

820

879

929

34.7%

35.9%

34.8%

37.3%

34.7%

45.0%

868 39.1% 838 39.5%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


855

837

848

853

846

985

49.0%

41.5%

41.5%

53.3%

45.7%

44.3%

863

838

843

849

859

918

52.4%

51.4%

47.1%

45.9%

47.8%

45.6%

7 816 44.7% 881 46.5%

StudentsTested


844

857

862

809

822

982

53.2%

47.5%

43.6%

50.1%

42.3%

42.4%

786 49.7%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


849

819

829

815

903

942

48.6%

48.4%

46.2%

56.2%

45.4%

52.2%

836

845

824

820

879

928

52.8%

51.8%

49.0%

49.6%

46.4%

48.4%

867 47.2% 838 50.7%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10

10


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, De Pere, 2015 pp. 18)




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

261

269

306

274

312

48.7%

45.6%

50.9%

51.6%

63.9%

49.0%

244

276

261

273

281

324

41.4%

55.8%

43.3%

59.7%

48.4%

48.5%

7 274 55.8% 325 55.7%

StudentsTested


249

257

299

265

291

281

40.6%

56.4%

45.8%

46.8%

43.6%

45.6%

265 54.3%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

235

285

267

332

311

43.4%

45.1%

52.3%

50.6%

57.2%

58.5%

235

260

251

290

312

299

47.7%

52.3%

44.2%

57.6%

53.5%

59.9%

297 59.6% 279 55.9%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

261

269

306

274

312

67.0%

63.6%

69.1%

72.9%

62.8%

50.3%

244

276

261

273

281

323

69.7%

73.9%

65.1%

70.7%

55.2%

55.1%

7 274 69.3% 325 69.5%

StudentsTested


249

257

299

265

291

281

67.1%

72.0%

66.6%

68.7%

53.6%

50.2%

265 73.6%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

235

285

267

333

311

59.2%

67.7%

67.7%

62.5%

55.9%

60.8%

235

260

251

290

312

299

69.4%

69.2%

67.3%

70.0%

60.6%

65.2%

297 65.7% 279 68.1%


De PereDistrict Report Card Detail | 2013-14 | Assessment Trends


WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

261

269

306

274

312

48.7%

45.6%

50.9%

51.6%

63.9%

49.0%

244

276

261

273

281

324

41.4%

55.8%

43.3%

59.7%

48.4%

48.5%

7 274 55.8% 325 55.7%

StudentsTested


249

257

299

265

291

281

40.6%

56.4%

45.8%

46.8%

43.6%

45.6%

265 54.3%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

235

285

267

332

311

43.4%

45.1%

52.3%

50.6%

57.2%

58.5%

235

260

251

290

312

299

47.7%

52.3%

44.2%

57.6%

53.5%

59.9%

297 59.6% 279 55.9%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

261

269

306

274

312

67.0%

63.6%

69.1%

72.9%

62.8%

50.3%

244

276

261

273

281

323

69.7%

73.9%

65.1%

70.7%

55.2%

55.1%

7 274 69.3% 325 69.5%

StudentsTested


249

257

299

265

291

281

67.1%

72.0%

66.6%

68.7%

53.6%

50.2%

265 73.6%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

235

285

267

333

311

59.2%

67.7%

67.7%

62.5%

55.9%

60.8%

235

260

251

290

312

299

69.4%

69.2%

67.3%

70.0%

60.6%

65.2%

297 65.7% 279 68.1%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

261

269

306

274

312

48.7%

45.6%

50.9%

51.6%

63.9%

49.0%

244

276

261

273

281

324

41.4%

55.8%

43.3%

59.7%

48.4%

48.5%

7 274 55.8% 325 55.7%

StudentsTested


249

257

299

265

291

281

40.6%

56.4%

45.8%

46.8%

43.6%

45.6%

265 54.3%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

235

285

267

332

311

43.4%

45.1%

52.3%

50.6%

57.2%

58.5%

235

260

251

290

312

299

47.7%

52.3%

44.2%

57.6%

53.5%

59.9%

297 59.6% 279 55.9%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

261

269

306

274

312

67.0%

63.6%

69.1%

72.9%

62.8%

50.3%

244

276

261

273

281

323

69.7%

73.9%

65.1%

70.7%

55.2%

55.1%

7 274 69.3% 325 69.5%

StudentsTested


249

257

299

265

291

281

67.1%

72.0%

66.6%

68.7%

53.6%

50.2%

265 73.6%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


267

235

285

267

333

311

59.2%

67.7%

67.7%

62.5%

55.9%

60.8%

235

260

251

290

312

299

69.4%

69.2%

67.3%

70.0%

60.6%

65.2%

297 65.7% 279 68.1%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


266

255

229

240

293

284

35.0%

31.8%

38.9%

40.4%

46.1%

50.7%

226

269

255

228

248

258

36.3%

34.2%

35.7%

45.2%

38.3%

56.2%

7 244 43.0% 244 50.0%

StudentsTested


254

226

243

227

269

301

38.2%

48.2%

39.1%

43.2%

42.4%

58.1%

294 49.0%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


256

234

273

258

248

294

32.8%

29.9%

38.8%

41.1%

53.6%

48.3%

256

263

237

269

245

243

40.2%

31.6%

31.2%

43.1%

41.6%

53.5%

253 47.4% 268 44.4%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


266

255

229

240

293

284

47.7%

53.3%

59.4%

71.7%

66.6%

69.4%

226

268

255

228

246

258

61.1%

58.2%

59.6%

58.3%

61.0%

70.2%

7 244 62.7% 244 73.0%

StudentsTested


253

226

243

227

269

301

56.1%

61.1%

70.4%

62.1%

63.9%

71.1%

294 71.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


256

234

273

258

248

294

48.8%

53.8%

59.0%

64.7%

66.1%

68.4%

257

263

237

269

245

243

61.9%

55.9%

52.7%

59.1%

65.3%

66.7%

253 62.5% 268 63.8%


Pulaski CommunityDistrict Report Card Detail | 2013-14 | Assessment Trends


WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


266

255

229

240

293

284

35.0%

31.8%

38.9%

40.4%

46.1%

50.7%

226

269

255

228

248

258

36.3%

34.2%

35.7%

45.2%

38.3%

56.2%

7 244 43.0% 244 50.0%

StudentsTested


254

226

243

227

269

301

38.2%

48.2%

39.1%

43.2%

42.4%

58.1%

294 49.0%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


256

234

273

258

248

294

32.8%

29.9%

38.8%

41.1%

53.6%

48.3%

256

263

237

269

245

243

40.2%

31.6%

31.2%

43.1%

41.6%

53.5%

253 47.4% 268 44.4%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


266

255

229

240

293

284

47.7%

53.3%

59.4%

71.7%

66.6%

69.4%

226

268

255

228

246

258

61.1%

58.2%

59.6%

58.3%

61.0%

70.2%

7 244 62.7% 244 73.0%

StudentsTested


253

226

243

227

269

301

56.1%

61.1%

70.4%

62.1%

63.9%

71.1%

294 71.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


256

234

273

258

248

294

48.8%

53.8%

59.0%

64.7%

66.1%

68.4%

257

263

237

269

245

243

61.9%

55.9%

52.7%

59.1%

65.3%

66.7%

253 62.5% 268 63.8%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10




Reading

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


266

255

229

240

293

284

35.0%

31.8%

38.9%

40.4%

46.1%

50.7%

226

269

255

228

248

258

36.3%

34.2%

35.7%

45.2%

38.3%

56.2%

7 244 43.0% 244 50.0%

StudentsTested


254

226

243

227

269

301

38.2%

48.2%

39.1%

43.2%

42.4%

58.1%

294 49.0%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


256

234

273

258

248

294

32.8%

29.9%

38.8%

41.1%

53.6%

48.3%

256

263

237

269

245

243

40.2%

31.6%

31.2%

43.1%

41.6%

53.5%

253 47.4% 268 44.4%

Mathematics

4

5

6

8

10

3

GradeStudentsTested


StudentsTested


266

255

229

240

293

284

47.7%

53.3%

59.4%

71.7%

66.6%

69.4%

226

268

255

228

246

258

61.1%

58.2%

59.6%

58.3%

61.0%

70.2%

7 244 62.7% 244 73.0%

StudentsTested


253

226

243

227

269

301

56.1%

61.1%

70.4%

62.1%

63.9%

71.1%

294 71.1%

StudentsTested


StudentsTested


256

234

273

258

248

294

48.8%

53.8%

59.0%

64.7%

66.1%

68.4%

257

263

237

269

245

243

61.9%

55.9%

52.7%

59.1%

65.3%

66.7%

253 62.5% 268 63.8%




WisconsinNation

40%34%


36%34%



47%41%

35%34%

Mathematics Reading




2013-14

2013-14

2012-13

2012-13

2011-12

2011-12

2010-11

2010-11

2009-10

2009-10


(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Pulaski, 2015 pp. 18)

APPENDIX E. STATEWIDE AVERAGES IN ADVANCED PLUS PROFICIENT MATHEMATICS SKILLS 2012-2014

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2015)

(Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, 2015)

11

Achievement Test ResultsWKCE/WAA Combined - All Students - November 2012–2013

Advanced + Proficient Levels Statewide

Mathematics

Mathematics

Statewide

Statewide

60,720

61,439

49.0%

52.0%

Grade 4

Grade 4

Enrolled FAY

Enrolled FAY

Advanced + Proficient

Advanced + Proficient

Achievement Test ResultsWKCE/WAA Combined - All Students - November 2013–2014

Advanced + Proficient Levels Statewide

WORKS CITED

Desilver, D. (2015, February 2). U.S. students improving – slowly – in math and science, but still lagging internationally. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/02/02/u-s-students-improving-slowly-in-math-and-science-but-still-lagging-internationally/

Freedberg, L. & Harrington, T. (2015, November 15). Curriculum materials a sticking point in Common Core implementation. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://edsource.org/2015/curriculum-materials-a-sticking-point-in-common-core-implementation/90524

Fletcher, G., Schaauser, D, & Levin, D. (2012). Out of Print: Reimagining the K–12 Textbook in a Digital Age. Washington, DC: State Educational Technology Directors Association (SETDA). Retrieved February 1, 2016, from http://www.setda.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/SETDA_Out_of_Print_FNL.pdf

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.corestandards.org/Math/

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2011, September 11). WISCONSIN STANDARDS for Mathematics. Retrieved November 23, 2015 from http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/default/files/imce/standards/pdf/common-core-math-standards.pdf

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2012). Wisconsin District and School Performance Reports. Wisconsin District and School Performance Reports. The Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/sdpr/spr.action

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015). De Pere District Report Card 2013–2014. Pg. 1–20. Retrieved from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015). Grafton District Report Card 2013–2014. 1–20. Retrieved from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015). Port Washington–Saukville District Report Card 2013–2014. 1–20. Retrieved from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015). Pulaski Community District Report Card 2013–2014. 1–20. Retrieved from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015). Muskego–Norway District Report Card 2013–2014. 1–20. Retrieved from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015). Waukesha Report Card 2013–2014. 1–20. Retrieved from https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/

Wu, Hung–Hsi (2011). “Phoenix Rising, Bringing the Common Core State Mathematics Standards to Life” American Educator. Fall 2011: 3–13.

12

BIBLIOGRAPHYNational Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers (2010). Common Core State Standards. Retrieved November 25, 2015, from http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-mathematics/

Welcome to Muskego-Norway Schools (2015). Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://www.muskegonorway.org

Port Washington-Saukville District Schools – Home (2015). Retrieved November, 23 2015, from http://www.pwssd.k12.wi.us/education/district/district.php?sectionid=1

The National Center for Education Statistics (2015, April 30). National Assessment of Education Progress. Retrieved December 4, 2015, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/about/

Unified School District of De Pere School Boundaries (2015). Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://www.depere.k12.wi.us/boundaries.html

Wikimedia Foundation. “Waukesha, Wisconsin.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Retrieved November 25, 2015, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha,_Wisconsin

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (2015, November 19). Homepage. Retrieved November 30, 2015, from http://dpi.wi.gov

13

INCREASING ADVANCED & PROFICIENT … ADVANCED & PROFICIENT MATHEMATICS SKILLS ... authentic command of mathematical concepts, not making math harder or ... mathematics teaching and

Documents