MiC middle schools outperformed prediction in 2016 and 2017 but the advantage faded by 2018, while non-selected comparison districts improved significantly¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r3 · q2
Currency · newest study 2019 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? In both 2016 and 2017, a higher percentage of MiC middle schools performed better than predicted than middle schools in similar non-selected districts, significant at p < .05. → Perry 2019 q2 i? Between 2016 and 2018 the percentage of MiC middle schools performing beyond prediction declined from 56 to 50 percent, a difference that is not statistically significant, while non-MiC-selected districts rose 9 percentage points, significant at p < .05. → Perry 2019 (2)

Evidence¶

Perry 2019¶

Perry, R., & Huang, K. (2019). Spotlight on student achievement: Analyses of statewide assessment data in Math in Common districts. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED601900

q2 · i? · associational · r3

Middle school regression analysis (Table 7) comparing MiC middle schools to 12 non-selected applicant districts found MiC schools beyond prediction at 56 percent (2016) and 59 percent (2017) versus 40 percent in comparison districts in both years.

"In both 2016 and 2017, a higher percentage of middle schools in MiC districts performed better than predicted, compared to middle schools in the group of similar districts that were not selected for MiC funding; the differences are statistically significant at the p < .05 level."

Perry 2019 (2)¶

Perry, R., & Huang, K. (2019). Spotlight on student achievement: Analyses of statewide assessment data in Math in Common districts. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED601900

q2 · i? · associational · r3

The same Table 7 analysis shows the MiC middle school advantage disappearing in 2018 (50 percent versus 49 percent in non-selected districts), while the comparison group's 9-point increase was significant at the p < .05 level.

"Between 2016 and 2018, the percentage of middle schools in MiC districts that were performing beyond prediction decreased (56 percent in 2016 versus 50 percent in 2018); this difference is not statistically significant."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Elementary schools in Math in Common districts exceeded predicted CAASPP mathematics performance at significantly higher rates than other California schools between 2016 and 2018 — related
• MiC district achievement on the CAASPP in mathematics generally followed the same statewide pattern from 2015 to 2018, with MiC districts slightly more homogeneous than non-selected districts — related
• English learners in nearly all MiC districts showed stronger annual CAASPP mathematics gains than their statewide peers from 2015 to 2017 despite remaining mostly at the lowest achievement level — related
• Statewide California mathematics achievement on the CAASPP was mostly stagnant from 2015 to 2018 and lagged behind English language arts gains — related
• PPE schools showed larger percentage increases in proficient students than non-PPE schools on statewide ELA and mathematics assessments, 2015–2017 — related