Preface

Tennessee is the only state in the Union that has an educational testing and assessment program that enables the tracking of the academic progress of every student in the state in the grades three though eight and beyond, as end of course testing in high school subject areas is implemented. The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) bases its estimates of the effectiveness of school districts, schools, and teachers on its massive, longitudinally merged database of Tennessee students’ test data, which now contains in excess of five million records including two years of high school end of course results.

One function of TVAAS is to provide fair and objective measures of the effectiveness of school systems and schools to legislators, educational administrators, and the public as part of the accountability provisions of the Educational Accountability Act (EIA) of 1992. Estimates of the effectiveness of teachers are provided to the teacher and to their appropriate administrators, only. However, it may be argued that an even more important function of TVAAS is that of providing a wealth of diagnostic information to educational policymakers, principals, and classroom teachers. With TVAAS data, educators can target efforts toward improving the academic growth of their students more precisely than ever before.

This booklet was compiled to present, in an accessible manner, some of the findings TVAAS has brought to light and to provide educators and educational policymakers with an overview of the TVAAS reports and how they can best be used to further the continuing effort toward educational excellence for Tennessee.

The graphs and tables included in this report address the following topics:

• Are Tennessee schools making progress over time?

• How do gains in Tennessee schools compare with the norm, nationally?

• What have we learned from the available high school end-of-course tests?

• Does the percentage of minority students affect school gains?

• Does the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches affect gains?

• How much difference does it make where a child goes to school?

• How much difference does it make which teacher a child receives?

• How does variability in teacher effectiveness affect students?

• Introduction

• The System Report and the School Report for Grades 3–8

• Simple Paired Mean Gains by Scale Score Groups

• The Teacher Report

• High School Subject Matter Tests Reports

• Supplemental Diagnostics

Introduction

The Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS) provides information on student academic gains across Tennessee to systems (since 1993), schools (since 1994), and to teachers (since 1996). This information has been used for a variety of purposes, both evaluative and diagnostic. To both ends, TVAAS provides data that enable state policy makers, school system administrators, school administrators, and teachers to identify the effects schools, curricula, structural schemes, programs, teaching strategies, and personnel have on student academic gain. For diagnostic purposes, the data are broken down at the system and school level so that teachers and administrators can readily ascertain their effectiveness with students performing at all levels of academic expertise, from the less adept student to the gifted learner. TVAAS data have also rendered educational findings from the analysis of patterns emerging from its massive and unique database, now containing more than 5 million records, which have led to deeper understanding of how educational outcomes are affected by such factors as school change and the variation in effectiveness from school to school and classroom to classroom.

The series of graphs presented here provides a visual representation of TVAAS findings about the academic gains of students across Tennessee in various subjects. The progress of Tennessee students over time in the five subjects for which TVAAS estimates are available—math, reading, language, science, and social studies—is depicted in the first set of graphs. These are followed by graphs that depict the distribution of gains among Tennessee students of various backgrounds and advantages. A third set of graphs shows how students are impacted by the teachers and schools to which they are assigned, illustrating the problem of variability among schools, systems, and classrooms. Finally, examples of TVAAS reports are included along with instructions for their interpretation. It is through these reports that schools, systems, and teachers can identify strengths and areas for improvement as they strive to provide the quality education for all students.

The findings presented here are meant to provide answers to a variety of questions with reference to TVAAS, its uses, and its ability to fairly estimate educational effects for schools and systems with various racial and economically advantaged and disadvantaged populations of students. More importantly, however, these graphs are provided in order to generate a better understanding of the vital impact that schools, systems, and teachers have on the academic attainment of Tennessee students and the importance of TVAAS as a tool for increasing their effectiveness. Across Tennessee, schools, systems, and classrooms with similar student populations exhibit wide variations in effectiveness. In some places, students excel while in others, students of similar abilities fail to reach their academic potentials. Where a student attends school is still very important for academic attainment, and that is unfair to those who are not fortunate to be enrolled in effective schools or classrooms.

Wherever a child goes to school, the opportunity for academic gain to the limits of that child's ability should be ensured. By taking as examples the schools, systems, and classrooms in Tennessee that are already providing this opportunity to their students and by learning from them, the goal of equal opportunity for a quality education for all Tennessee students can more rapidly become a reality.

State Summary of Academic Gain

• Are Tennessee schools making progress over time?

• How do gains in Tennessee schools compare with the norm, nationally?
• What have we learned from the available high school end-of-course tests?

State-Wide 8th Grade Averages, 1991-1997

The following graphs depict the state-wide average mean score of eighth grade students for each year from 1991 though 1997. One graph shows the state-wide yearly mean gain scores for math, language, and science and the other covers reading and social studies. A line representing the slope of best fit for the seven yearly averages is provided for each subject.

From these graphs, it can be seen that eighth grade students in Tennessee are achieving progressively higher scores, on average, in math, science, and language over the seven year period. For math, this trend is consistent with recent National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) findings that indicate that Tennessee is one of only a very few states whose fourth grade math scores had measurably improved in the past four years. Social studies scores for Tennessee eighth graders have remained fairly constant, while their reading scores have declined slightly. The slight downward trend in reading comprehension in Tennessee is also consistent with national trends. The possible causes are many and varied, but the decline is an indication that attention should be directed toward reversing this tendency.

There is still much to do in the fields of social studies and reading, and it is not too much to hope that further improvements in math, science, and language will result from the utilization of the diagnostic material available from the TVAAS reports. In any case, it is only through careful attention to assessment data such as that provided by TVAAS that such trends, whether toward improvement or not, can be detected and that informed strategies can be devised for ensuring that Tennessee students are provided with instruction that promotes optimal academic growth.

The next set of tables, one each for math, reading, language, science, and social studies, shows the percentage of schools in each of five categories ranging from less than 50% to more than 125% percent of the national norm gain for the years 1996 and 1997. The number of schools in each category in 1996 is indicated in the horizontal rows by the top number in each cell. The total number of schools in each category in 1996 is given in the farthest right-hand column. The number of schools in each category in 1997 is given in the vertical columns and is the top number in each cell. The total number of schools in each category in 1997 is provided in the last row of numbers.

When the 1997 totals are lower in the categories indicating inadequate gains (especially the "below 50%" and "50-75%" of the national norm gain) than those for 1996 and higher in the categories at and above the national norm than the 1996 totals, Tennessee schools are improving in those subjects. In math, for instance, while 41 schools attained less than 50% of the national norm gain in 1996, only 33 remained in that category in 1997, and whereas 405 schools achieved 100% or more of the national norm gain in 1996, 441 did so in 1997.

The lower numbers in each cell represent the percent of schools in each category in 1996 in relation to the category they attained in 1997. For example, in the table for math, 73.17% of those schools attaining less than 50% of the national norm gain in 1996 were still attaining less than 50% in 1997. However, 19.51% of Tennessee schools attaining less than 50% of the national norm gain improved to 50–75% of the national norm gain in 1997, and 7.32 improved to 75–100% in math.

All of the totals and percentages in these tables are based upon three-year averages. 1996 rankings were based on gains from 1994, 1995, and 1996; 1997 rankings were based on gains from 1995, 1996, and 1997.

These tables provide another way ascertaining, through the use of diagnostic data, where progress is being made and where it is lacking. In this case, the attainment level of the schools is determined across all grade levels covered by TVAAS within that school for each subject. Some movement is detectable, as is expected. Change for the better resulting in attainment of the national norm gain in all subjects at all schools is the goal. This goal has not yet been achieved for all subjects. There are still many Tennessee schools that have not yet attained the national norm gain. The importance of this information is that it details the current status of schools in relation to the national norm, shows movement over time in relation to the national norm gain, and provides direction for future initiatives that can ensure progress toward the goal of producing academic growth equal to or greater than the national norm gain in all Tennessee schools.

In 1996, after a year of field testing, the first end of course tests were implemented in Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. The graphs presented here depict the results of those tests.

The first graph shows the predicted mean along the horizontal axis and the observed mean on the vertical axis. The predicted mean is based upon the students’ previously observed achievement in all subjects in 7th and 8th grades and data from previously taken end of course tests, as such data accumulate. The observed means were those derived from the scoring of the tests. The diagonal line through the center of the distribution is the slope at which the predicted mean equals the observed mean. All schools that offered a given subject are represented by a dot on the graph.

The dots that appear above the diagonal line represent schools that are achieving observed means in excess of those predicted from their students’ previous achievement. The amount above the line can be called the "value-added" achievement of their students. These schools are doing a good job of positively influencing academic gains among the students they serve. Schools represented by dots below the diagonal are producing gains below those that would be expected, considering their students' previous achievement.

To illustrate the points made in the previous paragraph, several schools have been designated by the letters A, B, and C. School A's students, based upon their previous performance, were expected to score approximately 420, on average, on the Pre-Algebra end-of-course test. Their actually scores averaged 450 points, so the value-added effect of their school was +30 points. In School A, students received instruction that enabled them to learn far more than would have been predicted by the level at which they entered Pre-Algebra.

In School B, the predicted score for their Pre-Algebra students was about 505 points. However, their observed average score was only about 478. These students made far less progress, academically, than was predicted by their previous performance. Even though the average score of the Pre-Algebra students at School B was higher than the average score of the Pre-Algebra students at School A, School A did a far better job of meeting their students at their level of competence and bringing them along to a higher level of academic achievement. School B, however, began with students who were already performing at a high level but did not challenge them to learn. So even though School B's students made high scores, they actually progressed very little, since they were already scoring high when they entered Pre-Algebra.

Schools labeled with the letter C have been selected to show that students already making high scores when they enter the course can still make exceptional scores if appropriate instruction is provided. These schools are challenging their already high-performing students to make gains beyond those that would be expected. This is important, because the parents of adept learners have every bit as much right to expect that their children will learn from their classes as the parents of average or slower students. It is essential that students be challenged to achieve to their potential, regardless of where they enter the classroom.

The next four graphs, one each for Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry, illustrate the differences among Tennessee schools between their students’ observed means and their predicted means in these four subjects as compared to the state average. The variation between the highest ranking schools and the lowest ranking schools is quite dramatic, indicating that some schools have been extremely successful in assisting their students to reach well above their expected achievement in these subjects. However, a significant number of schools have shown far less academic growth in their students than would have been predicted by their previous achievement. It is obvious from these graphs that, depending upon where a student goes to school, there may be a real difference in how much he or she knows at the end of a year of math instruction.

Frequently Asked Questions

• Does the percentage of minority students affect school gains?

• Does the percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches affect gains?

The following graphs (one each for math, reading, language, science, and social studies) show the percent of minority students in each Tennessee school plotted against the three-year cumulative average gain of that school, expressed as a percent of the national cumulative norm gain. The national norm is indicated by the horizontal line drawn at 100 percent on the vertical axis. Each school in Tennessee is represented by a dot on the graph.

The graphs show that the effectiveness of a school cannot be predicted from a knowledge of the racial composition of the school population. This is important because racial makeup of the school population has often been cited as a factor that leads to reduced expectations for student academic growth. TVAAS data do not support this contention. Although sometimes schools with high proportions of minority students show lower average raw scale scores, the gains their students make are comparable to those of schools with a minimal proportion of minority students.

The following graphs (one each for math, reading, language, science, and social studies) show the percent of students in each Tennessee school system who receive free or reduced-price lunches plotted against the three-year cumulative average gains of their system, expressed as a percentage of the national norm gain. The national norm is indicated by the horizontal line drawn at 100 percent on the vertical axis. Each school system in Tennessee is represented by a dot on the graph.

The graphs show that the percent of students receiving free or reduced-price lunches is unrelated to system gain. This is important because the economic status of the school population has often been cited as a factor that impacts student academic growth. TVAAS data do not support this contention. Although sometimes schools with high proportions of students from families with lower than average incomes show lower average raw scale scores, the gains their students make are comparable to those of schools with students from families with average incomes or above.

The Problem of Variability

• How much difference does it make where a child goes to school?
• How much difference does it make which teacher a child receives?
• How does variability in teacher effectiveness affect students?

The following set of three graphs uses the new end-of-course mathematics tests to illustrate the variability among Tennessee school systems in the ability to foster students’ academic growth in Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry.

For the first graph, students whose 7th grade overall scores on the portion of the CTBS/4 utilized by TVAAS placed them in the top 25% of Tennessee students were identified. The Algebra I scores for these students were then used to determine a system mean for each system in the state. These means were then arranged from low to high to produce the distribution seen in the graph entitled "Mean Algebra I Scale Score of the Top Quartile of 7th Grade Math Students." Distributions for Algebra II and Geometry were derived from the scores of students identified as scoring in the top 25% on the 8th grade battery of tests. The reason for this is that students often take Algebra I in the 8th grade but almost never take Algebra II or Geometry until they are in high school.

All three graphs show a tremendous variation among Tennessee school systems in the end-of-course means achieved by their brightest students. Since only the top 25% of students, statewide,were included, the school systems began, for the purpose of this analysis, with students of very similar abilities, scoring at very similar levels. However, the system means at the end of one year of Algebra I, Algebra II, or Geometry can be seen to differ by as much as 110 points. The variation shown in this set of graphs makes it apparent that it matters very much where a student goes to school.

The set of graphs entitled "Variability in Effectiveness Among Math Teachers" is presented to illustrate the variation in effectiveness among teachers in producing academic gains in students. The data for this set of graphs is based upon three years of data for each teacher. The distributions are for math teachers, with one graph provided for each of grades three through eight. Distributions for teachers in other subject areas are similar.

The vertical lines in the graph represent individual teachers, and the length of the line represents a confidence interval of plus or minus two standard errors around the TVAAS estimate of each teacher’s effect on student gain. The effects are ordered from least to most effective. The horizontal line through the graph represents the Tennessee average gain, i.e., the amount of gain the average Tennessee student achieves in that particular grade and subject. If a vertical line representing a teacher crosses the line representing the Tennessee average gain, that teacher’s effect is not detectably different from the Tennessee average. However, those teachers whose effects do not intersect the line of the Tennessee average gain can be said to be either more effective, if their lines are above the average, or less effective, if their lines are below the average, than would be expected.

The graphs show that the average gain students make in math in grade three may vary from the least effective math teachers to the most effective math teachers by as much as ninety scale score points. The difference in average gains between the most effective and most ineffective teachers remains substantial through the eighth grade, the last grade for which data is available. TVAAS estimates of these differences have proven to be extremely stable over time and highly repeatable.

The graph, "Cumulative Effects of Teacher Sequence on Fifth Grade Math Scores for Two Metropolitan Systems," is included to illustrate how students are affected over the years by teachers who exhibit varying degrees of effectiveness in producing academic gains in their students.

The mean scale score for the students is depicted on the vertical axis. The horizontal axis shows the sequence of teachers to which the students in each category were assigned. "Low," "Average," and "High" indicate the effectiveness level of the teachers as determined by using TVAAS analyses based upon at least three years of data for each teacher.

It is apparent from the graph that System A's students score significantly higher than System B's. However, regardless of the starting point of the students, the results are the same when students are assigned to teachers of similar effectiveness. Those students assigned to three ineffective teachers in a row scored 52 percentile points in System A and 54 percentile points in System B below their fellow students who were fortunate enough to be assigned to three highly effective teachers in a row.

It is also apparent from this graph that student scores can be positively affected by the influence of even one average or highly effective teacher and that the same students will be negatively impacted by even one ineffective teacher (see, for example the Avg-Avg-Low sequence). Residual effects of teachers on subsequent academic growth can be measured at least three years after a child leaves that teacher’s classroom.

Interpreting TVAAS Reports

• Introduction

• The System Report and the School Report for Grades 3–8

• Simple Paired Mean Gains by Scale Score Groups

• The Teacher Report

• The High School Subject Matter Tests Reports

• Supplemental Diagnostics

TVAAS reports are issued annually to every school, system, and teacher involved in the instruction of grades three through eight in the subjects of math, reading, language, science, and social studies. With the implementation of the end of course testing, reports are also issued to schools and systems that teach subjects covered by the end of course tests. These reports are generated to meet the requirements of the Educational Improvement Act of 1992 and to provide information on educational effectiveness to legislators, educational administrators, teachers, and the citizens of Tennessee.

While considerable effort has been expended to make the reports easy to understand, explanations are provided in this booklet for each type of report to insure that the information contained in the reports can be fully utilized. [For a more detailed explanation of the elementary reports and TVAAS in general, see Using and Interpreting Tennessee’s Value-Added Assessment System: A Primer for Teachers and Principals by Samuel E. Bratton, Jr., Sandra P. Horn, and S. Paul Wright, published through the Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, The University of Tennessee, Knoxville, in 1996.]

The reports can be seen as a comprehensive, tiered group providing a broad perspective at the state and system levels and a narrower, more focused view at the school level, and an even more detailed vantage at the classroom level. Through constructive use of the TVAAS reports, it is possible to pinpoint areas needing improvement and to concentrate resources there rather than using the generalized approaches of the past. Educators can know what is working and what isn’t in a way that is completely new and much more precise than previous methods could render.

The TVAAS System and School Reports are very similar in format and can therefore be treated together. These reports are provided annually to every school and school system in Tennessee for which data are available. Each school and system receives a set of five reports, one each for math, reading, language, science, and social studies. The illustrative reports provided here are for only one subject since the format for all subject reports is identical. The system report incorporates data from all the schools within that system. The school report is based on data only from that individual school. The reports are issued to provide schools and systems with the data they need to identify strengths and weaknesses in order to allocate resources and develop plans to best address the needs of their students.

On the system and school reports, the subject of the specific report is given just below the school and/or system name. Following this is a section entitled "Estimated Mean Scale Scores." These scores are provided for each grade in the school or system for which TVAAS estimates are provided (currently, grades 3 through 8). The USA Norm scale score is then provided for comparison purposes. For the scale scores, the USA Norm is the score that corresponds to the 50th percentile. Following the USA Norm are the scale score means achieved by the school or system in the most recent four testing years, broken down by grade level for this particular subject.

The next section is titled "Estimated Mean Gains." Once again, the USA Norm is provided for each grade level. In this case, the USA Norm Gain is the increase in scale score that students average, nationally, over a year's time. The school's or system's mean gains, by grade, in this specific subject, follow the three-year average gain for the three previous years. By reporting three-year averages, no single year can have excessive influence on the school's or system's profile. The standard errors are given below the mean gain for each grade and year. Note that the standard errors are smaller for systems than for schools because of the greater amount of data that enters into the TVAAS estimates for systems than for schools.

Still in the "Estimated Mean Gains" section but below the mean gains, themselves, is a row titled "Improvement." When the previous year’s three-year average was more than two standard errors below the norm for a particular grade, "improvement" is calculated by subtracting the current year’s mean gain from the previous year's three-year gain. "S" signifies significant improvement, and "NS" indicates no significant improvement.

Finally, in this section, note a column labeled "Cumulative (% of Norm)." This column reports the percent of the national norm gain attained in a particular year or averaged over a three-year period for all grades in the school or system. Standard errors are also provided for these percentages.

The final section of the reports is a graph entitled "Approximate 95% Confidence Intervals for System (LEA) [or, alternately, "School"] Mean Gains." The most recent three years of data are represented for each grade level. "L" is the System Mean Gain, "N" is the National Norm Gain, and "X" is the School Mean Gain. On the System Report, "L" and "N" are used. On the School Report, "X" is used in addition to "L" and "N." The purpose of this graph is to visually represent the mean gains of the system in relation to the national norm and, in the case of schools, to the system's mean gain as well as the national norm. The parentheses indicate the boundaries of the 95% confidence intervals. Note that these intervals are larger for schools than for systems because the standard errors for systems are smaller than those of schools since so much more data is incorporated in the calculation of system TVAAS estimates.

For diagnostic purposes, reports titled "Simple Paired Mean Gain by Scale Score Groups" are provided to each school with responsibility for any students in grades 3 through 8 for which TVAAS data are available. The purpose of these reports is to furnish schools with information on their effectiveness with students at various levels of academic attainment. Schools can then assess whether they are meeting the needs of their students or whether they should direct more attention toward certain subgroups of their population—the highest performing students, the average students, or the less adept learners.

Schools receive a one-page report for each grade (3 though 8) they serve. Student gains for five subjects—math, reading, language, social studies, and science—are provided for the current year. The average gain for the three previous years for each subject is shown for comparison. Standard errors and the number of students in each achievement group are also given.

The number of scale score groups will vary from school to school and grade to grade, depending upon whether any students in that school or grade fall into a particular scale score range. The groups all cover a range of fifty scale score points. The USA Norm gain for each subject is provided in the last column.

With the information from these reports, schools can determine how instruction is affecting students performing at different achievement levels within their classrooms. In the example provided, the gains of the average to low average students in the third grade are generally higher than those of the higher performing students, possibly indicating that the high scoring students are not being challenged with materials that would enable them to progress academically at the rate that would be expected. However, in the fourth grade, at the same school, these high achieving students exhibit gains that are consistently above the national norm gain. Based upon the diagnostic data provided in this report, this school might choose to revise curricular offerings and/or instruction at the third grade level in order to address the specific needs of their high achieving students.

The above example provides only one illustration of how the information from this report can be used to improve instruction. The diagnostic data from the "Simple Paired Means by Scale Score Groups" reports enable principals and teachers to pinpoint achievement groups for additional academic attention as they seek to bring all students to high levels of academic attainment.

The Teacher Report

The TVAAS Teacher Report is issued annually to each teacher in grades three through eight for whom data are available. The purpose of the report is to furnish teachers with information that will be helpful to them in planning instruction and professional growth opportunities that are directly aligned with addressing identified strengths and weaknesses.

The report begins with a section that identifies the teacher, school, system, and the grade for which the report is issued. Following this is the section entitled "Estimated Mean Gains and (in parentheses) their Standard Errors." This section is divided by subject area. The USA Norm Gain and the State Mean Gain for each subject at that grade level are given for comparison. The teacher and system gains for the most recent three years are then provided followed by the teacher's three-year average and the system's three-year average. Each gain is followed by it's standard error, in parentheses.

The section titled "Teacher 3-Year-Average Gain Comparisons" utilizes the standard errors to compare the teacher's gain, based upon three years of data, to the national norm, the state mean, and the mean of the system in which s/he teaches. Comparisons are made for each subject taught. The teacher gain is designated NDD ("not detectably different") unless it is more than two standard errors of measurement above or below the norm or mean to which it is being compared.

The final section of the teacher report is a graph titled "Teacher 3-Year-Average Gain in Scale Score Units with Approximate 95% Confidence Intervals." On this graph, which provides information by subject area, the teacher gain is represented by a "T" enclosed in parentheses indicating the 95% confidence interval. The national norm is represented by an "N", the state mean by an "S", and the system mean by an "L". The graph is provided as a visual representation of the relationship of the teacher's average gain to the norm gain and to other teachers within the state and the local system.

High School Subject Matter Tests Reports

"High School Subject Matter Tests Reports" are provided annually to each school and system in Tennessee for which data are available. Subjects for which tests are in place as of the fall of 1997 are Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry.

The reports are identical for schools and systems. After the identifying information, the report begins by providing the mean of student scores, the mean of predicted scores, the TVAAS school effect, and a statement, under the column "School vs State Average" or "System vs State Average" as to whether the school or system is above, below, or not detectably different ("NDD") from the state average. These numbers are provided for each subject along with the percentile rank of the school's or system's mean of student scores and mean of predicted scores relative to all Tennessee students who took the test. The number of students who took the test in each subject within the school or system is provided as well.

All of the terms presented here are defined on the report itself, so it is very easy to interpret. The report allows schools and systems to see how their gains compare to the average in Tennessee and to focus on improvements where needed based upon the data.

Supplemental Diagnostics

"Supplemental Diagnostics" are provided to each school for which end of course test data are available. Currently, these data are available for Pre-Algebra, Algebra I, Algebra II, and Geometry. A few schools have also participated in Technical Math I testing, and more schools will have data for this subject as they initiate courses in this subject.

Quintiles are determined by dividing all Tennessee students into five groups on the basis of their predicted score. The numbers in the row titled "Nr. of Students" indicate the number of students in the school in each subject that fall into each group according to their predicted scores. The mean for each group is determined by subtracting the observed score from the predicted score for each student and averaging the results. A score of zero means that the observed score equaled the predicted score. A positive number indicates that students in the school, on average, scored higher than was predicted by the number indicated. A negative number indicates that the observed score was lower than was predicted for that group of students. The percent of students in each quintile is also given for each subject.

"Supplemental Diagnostics" reports are provided to furnish teachers and administrators with information comparable to that found in the "Simple Paired Mean Gain by Scale Score Groups" report. Teachers and administrators can readily determine when students at particular achievement levels are making appropriate progress in the high school subject areas for which end of course tests are available. In the example given, no distinct trends by achievement level can be discerned. However, it is readily evident that, in this particular school, Pre-Algebra and Algebra II students are not achieving at their predicted levels at the end of these courses. This information could quite logically lead to additional attention in these areas that could lead to improvement in student achievement in these subjects over time.