teachers. To determine statistical significance, we conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the metrics. As shown in Table 5.4, student growth and achievement in schools with a high number of teachers is greater for all both mathematics and reading in comparison to schools with a low number of SNRPDP-trained teachers and the CCSD district average. Furthermore, schools with a high number of SNRPDP-trained teachers are statistically greater in mathematics growth, mathematics achievement, reading growth, and reading achievement. In educational research, statistically significant differences are generally defined as those that have a 5% or fewer probability of being due to chance (p .05). Highly significant differences are those that have 1% or ≤ fewer probability of being due to chance (p .01). ≤ 5.4. Comparison of Student Growth and Achievement Scores for Schools with a Number of SNRPDP-trained Teachers (N = 30 schools) High to Those with a Low Number of SNRPDP-trained teachers (N = 30 schools) to the CCSD Average Mean Mathematics Median Growth Percentile High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 55** Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 45 District Average 51 Reading Median Growth Percentile A High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 54** Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 47 District Average 50 Mathematics Achievement (Percent Proficient) A High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 68%* Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 56% District Average 56% Reading Achievement (Percent Proficient) A High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 71%** Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 59% District Average 61% *Statistically greater, with p .05. ≤ **Statistically greater, with p .01. ≤ Note. These comparisons are based on date from 2012-2013, the latest year data are available on the Nevada Growth Model web site (). No growth data are available for Fall 2013 to Spring 2016 because of installation of new achievement tests by the Nevada. The remaining conclusions from this year’s analysis are summarized in the very beginning of this section and will not be repeated here. However, as an additional summary, 5.5 shows the evaluation matrix with the results. Table 5.5. Evaluation Matrix for the Quantitative Segment with 2015-2016 Results
teachers. To determine statistical significance, we conducted an analysis of variance (ANOVA) for each of the metrics. As shown in Table 5.4, student growth and achievement in schools with a high number of teachers is greater for all both mathematics and reading in comparison to schools with a low number of SNRPDP-trained teachers and the CCSD district average. Furthermore, schools with a high number of SNRPDP-trained teachers are statistically greater in mathematics growth, mathematics achievement, reading growth, and reading achievement. In educational research, statistically significant differences are generally defined as those that have a 5% or fewer probability of being due to chance (p ≤ .05). Highly significant differences are those that have 1% or fewer probability of being due to chance (p ≤ .01). 5.4. Comparison of Student Growth and Achievement Scores for Schools with a High Number of SNRPDP-trained Teachers (N = 30 schools) to Those with a Low Number of SNRPDP-trained teachers (N = 30 schools) to the CCSD Average Mean Mathematics Median Growth Percentile High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 55** Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 45 District Average 51 Reading Median Growth Percentile A High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 54** Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 47 District Average 50 Mathematics Achievement (Percent Proficient) A High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 68%* Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 56% District Average 56% Reading Achievement (Percent Proficient) A High Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 71%** Low Number of SNRPDP-Trained Teachers 59% District Average 61% *Statistically greater, with p ≤ .05. **Statistically greater, with p ≤ .01. Note. These comparisons are based on date from 2012-2013, the latest year data are available on the Nevada Growth Model web site (). No growth data are available for Fall 2013 to Spring 2016 because of installation of new achievement tests by the Nevada. The remaining conclusions from this year’s analysis are summarized in the very beginning of this section and will not be repeated here. However, as an additional summary, 5.5 shows the evaluation matrix with the results. Table 5.5. Evaluation Matrix for the Quantitative Segment with 2015-2016 Results
2016_Eyr_final_2.docx