CAEP 4.1 Completer Impact Data 2017-2021
SDSU partnered with two School Districts to identify a sample of program completers from the last five years. Due to how MAP data is reported, we were only able to extract individual data for a sample of eleven teachers from partner districts.
SDSU was provided a sample of K-12 test scores from the Measures of Academic Progress (MAP) Growth Assessment. This assessment is a computerized adaptive test that helps teachers, parents and administrators improve learning for students and make informed decisions that promote a child’s academic growth. The assessment is administered at three points in the academic year; Fall, Winter and Spring. Partner districts administer the assessment at all grade levels. Students take both a Reading and Mathematics test.
The initial sample included MAP Growth Assessment scores for seven Early Childhood completers.
Teacher | Grade Level | SDSU Graduate Team | Hire Date |
---|
Teacher 1 | K | 2017 | 2017-2018 AY |
Teacher 2 | 1 | 2018 | 2018-2019 AY |
Teacher 3 | 2 | 2018 | 2018-2019 AY |
Teacher 4 | 1 | 2019 | 2019-2020 AY |
Teacher 5 | K | 2019 | 2019-2020 AY |
Teacher 6 | K | 2019 | 2019-2020 AY |
The first metric we examined was the Mean RIT Scores for K-12 students taught by our completers for each academic year. A RIT score is an estimation of a student's instructional level and also measures student progress or growth in school. The RIT scale measures student performance, regardless of whether they’re performing on, above, or below grade level. Below are the mean RIT scores for K-12 students taught by our completers. The table also provides a comparison mean RIT score that is based on national achievement in the same subject area and grade level.
The teachers’ students in this sample are performing at or above their peers at the national level. In mathematics, the students taught by our graduates scored above the benchmark for their grade in every academic year that was reviewed.
Mean RIT Score MAP Growth; Reading Assessment
Teacher | 2017-2018 | 2018-2019 | 2019-2020 | 2020-2021 |
---|
Teacher 1 | 175.56 | 182.98 | 163.12 | 173.19 |
Teacher 1 - Benchmark for Grade Level | 141.05 | 140.45 | 146.28 | 146.28 |
Teacher 2 | - | 191.97 | 175.43 | 178.32 |
Teacher 2 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 175.78 | 171.40 | 171.40 |
Teacher 3 | - | 181.45 | 186.50 | 189.07 |
Teacher 3 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 179.54 | 185.57 | 185.57 |
Teacher 4 | - | - | 178.34 | 189.52 |
Teacher 4 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 171.40 | 171.40 |
Teacher 5 | - | - | 174.89 | 177.51 |
Teacher 5 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 146.28 | 146.28 |
Teacher 6 | - | - | 159.34 | 161.23 |
Teacher 6 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 146.28 | 146.28 |
| | | | |
Mean RIT Score MAP Growth; Mathematics Assessment
Teacher | 2017-2018 | 2018-2019 | 2019-2020 | 2020-2021 |
---|
Teacher 1 | 160.67 | 165.29 | 161.32 | 169.25 |
Teacher 1 - Benchmark for Grade Level | 153.23 | 159.54 | 157.11 | 157.11 |
Teacher 2 | - | 177.95 | 178.78 | 181.55 |
Teacher 2 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 173.42 | 176.40 | 176.40 |
Teacher 3 | - | 191.25 | 196.33 | 193.06 |
Teacher 3 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 188.40 | 189.42 | 189.42 |
Teacher 4 | - | - | 179.56 | 176.89 |
Teacher 4 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 176.40 | 176.40 |
Teacher 5 | - | - | 160.22 | 162.12 |
Teacher 5 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 157.11 | 157.11 |
Teacher 6 | - | - | 163.26 | 160.53 |
Teacher 6 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 157.11 | 157.11 |
In terms of measuring growth, we looked at Average Mean Growth, Fall to Spring for all completers and compared it to the national mean growth at the same grade level for the same time period. This metric shows the amount of growth in scores from Fall to Spring semesters. Scores were consistently above the growth norm for their grade level for all years.
Average Growth, Fall to Spring; Reading
Teacher | 2017-2018 | 2018-2019 | 2019-2020 | 2020-2021 |
---|
Teacher 1 | 19.58 | 20.09 | 21.35 | 19.27 |
Teacher 1 - Benchmark for Grade Level | 16.45 | 16.45 | 16.45 | 16.45 |
Teacher 2 | - | 21.94 | 17.52 | 20.10 |
Teacher 2 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 15.47 | 15.47 | 15.47 |
Teacher 3 | - | 17.20 | 14.39 | 18.86 |
Teacher 3 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 13.22 | 13.22 | 13.22 |
Teacher 4 | - | - | 16.34 | 18.45 |
Teacher 4 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 15.47 | 15.47 |
Teacher 5 | - | - | 19.56 | 21.43 |
Teacher 5 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 16.45 | 16.45 |
Teacher 6 | - | - | 18.05 | 19.43 |
Teacher 6 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 16.45 | 16.45 |
| | | | |
Average Growth, Fall to Spring; Mathematics
Teacher | 2017-2018 | 2018-2019 | 2019-2020 | 2020-2021 |
---|
Teacher 1 | 19.76 | 21.33 | 18.45 | 19.89 |
Teacher 1 - Benchmark for Grade Level | 17.54 | 17.54 | 17.54 | 17.54 |
Teacher 2 | - | 15.40 | 15.33 | 18.23 |
Teacher 2 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 16.35 | 16.35 | 16.35 |
Teacher 3 | - | 20.82 | 15.07 | 19.34 |
Teacher 3- Benchmark for Grade Level | - | 14.38 | 14.38 | 14.38 |
Teacher 4 | - | - | 19.66 | 19.48 |
Teacher 4 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 16.35 | 16.35 |
Teacher 5 | - | - | 18.74 | 18.33 |
Teacher 5 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 17.54 | 17.554 |
Teacher 6 | - | - | 15.58 | 19.58 |
Teacher 6 - Benchmark for Grade Level | - | - | 17.54 | 17.54 |
Each student is assigned a growth goal for each administration of the MAP assessment. The tables below show the percentage of students in the SDSU graduates class who met their growth goal from the Fall to Spring semesters.
Percentage of Students Met Growth Goal; Reading
Teacher | 2017-2018 | 2018-2019 | 2019-2020 | 2020-2021 |
---|
Teacher 1 | 69% | 71% | 71% | 70% |
Teacher 2 | - | 82% | 79% | 78% |
Teacher 3 | - | 68% | 53% | 74% |
Teacher 4 | - | - | 55% | 69% |
Teacher 5 | - | - | 58% | 64% |
Teacher 6 | - | | 61% | 73% |
Percentage of Students Met Growth Goal; Mathematics
Teacher | 2017-2018 | 2018-2019 | 2019-2020 | 2020-2021 |
---|
Teacher 1 | 75% | 80% | 66% | 79% |
Teacher 2 | - | 63% | 54% | 69% |
Teacher 3 | - | 72% | 61% | 75% |
Teacher 4 | - | - | 51% | 53% |
Teacher 5 | - | - | 49% | 54% |
Teacher 6 | - | - | 54% | 65% |
The following sample data come from a partner district as of the 2020-2021 academic year; thus, only one year of data is represented.
Teacher | Grade Level | SDSU Graduation Year | SDSU Program | Hire Date |
---|
Teacher 1 | 3 | 2014 | ECE | 2014-2015 |
Teacher 2 | High School | 2013 | English | 2013-2014 |
Teacher 3 | High School | 2004 | Ag Education | 2005-2006 |
Teacher 4 | 3 | 2013 | ECE | 2013-2014 |
Teacher 5 | 6 | 2017 | ECE | 2017-2018 |
Math K-12
Teacher | Fall RIT | Spring RIT | Difference | Percentage Met |
---|
Teacher 1 | 188.00 | 203.48 | 15.48 | 71% |
Teacher 4 | 196.10 | 210.74 | 14.64 | 62% |
Teacher 5 | 216.58 | 226.05 | 9.47 | 68.5% |
Reading
Teacher | Fall RIT | Spring RIT | Difference | Percentage Met |
---|
Teacher 1 | 187.28 | 201.76 | 14.48 | 71% |
Teacher 4 | 194.38 | 206.17 | 11.79 | 62% |
Teacher 5 | 214.87 | 217.29 | 2.42 | 48% |
Algebra I
Teacher | Fall RIT | Spring RIT | Difference | Percentage Met |
---|
Teacher 2 | 234.15 | 236.45 | 2.3 | 32% |
Teacher 3 | 226 | 230.25 | 4.25 | 38% |
Algebra II
Teacher | Fall RIT | Spring RIT | Difference | Percentage Met |
---|
Teacher 3 | 194.38 | 206.17 | 11.79 | 62% |
Geometry
Teacher | Fall RIT | Spring RIT | Difference | Percentage Met |
---|
Teacher 2 | 255.33 | 256.5 | 1.17 | 0% |
Teacher 3 | 231.75 | 233.75 | 8.82 | 60% |
Reading
Teacher | Fall RIT | Spring RIT | Difference | Percentage Met |
---|
Teacher 2 | 223.26 | 223.13 | -.13 | 31% |
Teacher 3 | 218.59 | 215.34 | -3.25 | 32% |
SDSU graduates have growth rates comparative with, and in some cases beyond, peers. The low percentage met rates in math and reading in HS is in keeping with district benchmarks. We will continue to monitor how we can better prepare teacher candidates to meet these challenges and help students to achieve growth goals, particularly in math and reading.