Transcript School Improvement Research Text – Based Discussion

A Focused Conversation For Data Analysis
Statewide Conference
Regional Special Education Technical Assistance Support
Centers
May 23, 2013
Presenter: Vincent Tarsio
Session Goals

Goal#1: Table groups will use a data
analysis protocol to discuss and organize
findings from three sets of school data to
determine what the data tells us about
the school.

Goal#2: In our role as Special Education
School Improvement Specialists, we will
discuss how we can make the best use of
the results of the data analysis. Based on
this analysis, we will explore strategies
that can be used to guide and support
the school's efforts to improve student
outcomes, especially outcomes for
students with disabilities.
Using the Data……The Payoff

Measure student achievement.

Identify students who are falling behind.

Evaluate program effectiveness.

Assess instruction.

Guide curriculum development.

Address NCLB, state and local requirements.

Reveal trends and changes.

Confirm/reject assumptions for common understanding.

Maintain educational focus on missions, goals and objectives.

Assist in resource allocation.

Promote accountability.
Adapted from:
Data Analysis for Comprehensive Schoolwide Improvement: 1998. Victoria L. Bernhardt.
The Continuous School Improvement
Process
From Data Wise
Boudett, K., City, E., and Murnane, R., (Eds.): 2005.
Data Wise: A Step-By-Step Guide to Using Assessment Results to Improve Teaching and Learning.
Boston: Harvard, p. 190
.
School Profile
Name: Ellis B. Hyde Elementary School
District: Dansville Central School District
Grades: 3 - 6
Enrollment: 485
Student Groups:
 Black or African American - 3%
 Hispanic or Latino – 3%
 Multiracial – 1%
School Profile (con’t)
Asian or Native Hawaiian/Other
 Pacific Islander – 1%
 White - 93%
English Language Learners – 2%
Students With Disabilities – 7.5%
Free or Reduced Lunch – 47%

Data Sets
The New York State Accountability Report
2011-12
The New York State School Report Card
2011-12
DCS Special Education Program Evaluation
Survey
ORID Data Analysis Protocol
Four Levels of Analysis
Objective
 Reflective
 Interpretive
 Decisional

Objective
Purpose
 To examine the data
 To identify factual information
Some Questions to Consider
 What do you see?
 What factual statements can you make
based on the data?
Reflective
Purpose
 To encourage participants to make connections
 To encourage free flow of ideas and imagination
Questions to Consider
 What surprised you?
 What encouraged you?
 What discouraged you?
 How does this make you feel?
Interpretive
Purpose
 To identify patterns and determine their significance or
meaning
 To articulate underlying insights
Questions to Consider
 What does the data tell us? What new insights do you
have?
 What good news is there for us to celebrate?
 What doesn’t it tell us and what else might we need to
know?
 What areas of need seem to arise?
Decisional
Purpose
 To propose next steps
 To develop an action plan
 To make decisions
 To experience “coming together”
Questions to Consider
 What are our proposed next steps?
 What decisions can we make?
 What is our action plan for moving forward?
Focus Areas for School
Improvement
Curriculum and Instruction
Student Support Services
Community & Family Involvement
Professional Development
School Culture and Climate
School Organization
Performance Levels
Elementary/Middle-Level
ELA and Mathematics
Student performance in elementary/middle-level ELA and
mathematics is determined using a Performance Index (PI)
calculation. This calculation uses six levels of student
achievement:
Level 1 On Track = Basic and On Track to Proficient
Level 1 Not On Track = Basic and NOT On Track to Proficient
Level 2 On Track = Basic Proficient and On Track to Proficient
Level 2 Not On Track = Basic Proficient and NOT On Track to Proficient
Level 3 = Proficient
Level 4 = Advanced
15
Performance Index (PI)
Formula
Elementary/Middle-Level
ELA and Mathematics
PI = [(number of continuously enrolled tested students
scoring at Level 1 On Track + Level 1 On Track + Level 2
On Track + Level 2 On Track + Level 2 NOT On Track +
Level 3 + Level 3 + Level 4 + Level 4) ÷ number of
continuously enrolled tested students]  100
16
Meeting the Performance Criterion
Using Effective AMOs, State
Standards,
Safe Harbor, and Progress Targets


To meet the performance criterion in ELA and
math, the Performance Index of a group
with 30 or more students must be equal to or
greater than the Effective Annual
Measurable Objective (Effective AMO)
or the group must make Safe Harbor.
To meet the performance criterion in science,
the Performance Index of a group with 30
or more students must be equal to or greater
than the Effective AMO or the group must
meet its Progress Target.