Transcript osi.dadeschools.net

Miami-Dade County Public Schools
Presented by Dr. Yuwadee Wongbundhit
Curriculum and Instruction
June 7-18, 2010
SIP Goal Areas
Data Source
AYP
• Expected Level of
Performance
• Criteria
Improvement
• Guiding
Questions
• Root Cause
Analysis
• FCAT
Demographic
Reports
• FCAT Results by
Schools
• School
Performance
Reports
• % Criteria Met
Calculation
• Safe Harbor
Provision
• Growth Model
Provision
You...
attended the 2011 SIP technical training in May
are familiar with FCAT, school grade and AYP
are familiar with the District Interim Assessments
have some experience looking at the data
love, love, love data!!!
Norms
Listen to others.
Engage with the ideas presented.
Ask questions.
Reflect on relevance to you.
Next, set your learning into action.
2011 Expected Improvements
Part II of SIP – Goal Areas
Science
Writing
Math
Reading
2011 SIP Part II
Student Learning
Demographics
Reading
Attendance
Math
Suspensions
Writing
Dropout
Prevention
Science
Parent
Involvement
2011 SIP PART II
Student Learning Goals
School
Grade
•Meeting High Standards
•Learning Gains
AYP
•Meeting High Standards
•Total and Subgroups
2011 SIP GOALS ON SCHOOL GRADE
(Not for High School)
Meeting high standards
(400 points)
Reading (goals 1-2)
Making learning gains
(400 points)
Reading (goals 3-4)
• Overall learning gain
• Low 25% learning gains
Math (goals 1-2)
Science (goals 1-2)
Writing (goal 1)
Math (goals 3-4)
• Overall learning gains
• Low 25% learning gains
F: 0-394; D: 395-434 C: 435-494;
B: 495-524, A: 525-800
2011 SIP GOALS ON SCHOOL GRADE
(High School Only)
Meeting high standards
(400 points)
Reading (goals 1-2)
Making learning gains
(400 points)
Reading (goals 3-4)
• Overall learning gain
• Low 25% learning gains
Math (goals 1-2)
Science (goals 1-2)
Writing (goal 1)
Math (goals 3-4)
• Overall learning gains
• Low 25% learning gains
FCAT Retake Bonus
(10 Points)
2009-10 New High School Grading System
FCAT Component (800 points)
New Component (800 points)
Meeting High Standards
Graduation
•
•
•
•
• Overall (200 points)
• At Risk (100 points)
Reading (100 Points)
Math (100 Points)
Science (100 Points)
Writing (100 Points)
Making Learning Gains
Acceleration Courses
• Reading (200 Points)
• Math (200 Points)
• Participation (200 Points)
• Performance (100 Points)
FCAT Retake Bonus Point (10 Points)
Readiness (200 Points)
• Reading
• Math
• Reading (100 Points)
• Math (100 Points)
F: 0-789; D: 790-869; C: 870-989; B: 990-1049, A: 1050-1600
New High School Accountability Report (High school Only)
New High School Accountability Report
(High school Only)
http://curriculum.dadeschools.net/schoolperformancereports.asp
DATA/COM Reports (High School Only)
• From the SIP Links folder, double click on
“Curriculum & Instruction”
• Under DATA/COM Report
– Select 4/20/10 DATA/COM Report
– Select your school report
Expected Graduates for 2009-10 Report
(High School Only)
AYP (NCLB Graduation Rate)
Grade
9
200506
Grade
10
200607
Grade
11
200708
Grade
12
200809
Standard diplomas and GEDs but
not special diplomas
School Grade (NGA Rate)
Grade
9
200607
Grade
10
200708
Grade
11
200809
Grade
12
200910
Standard and special diplomas but
not GEDs
2011 SIP GOALS ON AYP
Total Group
Subgroups
Reading (goals 1-2)
Reading (goal 5)
Math (goals 1-2)
Math (goal 5)
Writing (goal 1)
Writing (goal 2)
Graduation (goal 1)
For a school to
meet AYP,
what percent
of the criteria
must be met?
http://schoolgrades.fldoe.org/default.asp
39 Components Criteria (NA, No, Yes)
Group
Participation Met
(Tested 95%)
Proficiency Met
Other AYP
Criteria
Reading
Math
Reading
Math
TOTAL
1
1
1
1
WHITE
2
2
2
2
BLACK
3
3
3
3
HISP.
4
4
4
4
ASIAN
5
5
5
5
Am. Ind.
6
6
6
6
ED
7
7
7
7
ELL
8
8
8
8
School Grade
SWD
9
9
9
9
Total Group
Writing
Total Group
Graduation
Total Group
19
Proficiency Targets in Reading/Math
Annual Proficiency Targets
2010-11: Reading is 79%
2010-11: Math is 80%
Safe Harbor Provision
Applied if the school or subgroup did not meet the proficiency targets
Growth Model Provision
Applied if the school or subgroup did not meet the proficiency targets
or the safe harbor proficiency targets
Proficiency Targets in Reading/Math
Annual Proficiency Targets
2010-11: Reading is 79%
2010-11: Math is 80%
Safe Harbor Provision
Applied if the school or subgroup did not meet the proficiency targets
Growth Model Provision
Applied if the school or subgroup did not meet the proficiency targets
or the safe harbor proficiency targets
Year
2008-09
2009-10
%Proficiency Targets
Reading
Math
65
68
72
74
2010-11
79
80
2011-12
2012-13
2013-14
86
93
100
86
93
100
Percent Criteria Calculation
Counts the number of components with “No”
There are 9 components with “No”
Subtract the number of “No” from 39
39 minus 9 = 30
Divide the result by 39, then multiply by 100
(30 / 39) * 100 = 76.92%
Percent of AYP Criteria Met is 77%
What percent of the criteria
was met for this school?
(Green-Handout, page 13)
What percent of the criteria was met for this school?
(Green-Handout, page 13)
Percent Criteria Calculation
Counts the number of components with “No”
There are 10 components with “No”
Subtract the number of “No” from 39
39 minus 10 = 29
Divide the result by 39, then multiply by 100
(29 / 39) * 100 = 74.34%
Percent of AYP Criteria Met is 74%
Writing
Math
Reading
How many AYP components are on
the 2011 SIP Goals?
Science
9 components - reading (goals 1, 2 and 5)
9 components - math (goals 1, 2 and 5)
1 component - writing (goals 1)
1 component - graduation (goal 1)
1 component - school grade
2011 SIP GOALS
School Grade & AYP
School Grade
Reading
Reading
(goals 1-2)
(goals 3-4)
Math
Math
(goals 1-2)
(goals 3-4)
Writing
Science
(goal 1)
(goals 1-2)
Graduation
(goal 1)
AYP
Reading
(goal 5)
Math
(goal 5)
Writing
(goal 2)
Now, let’s take a look
Expected Improvement
Criteria
(Green Handout, page 1)
Expected Proficient
(Green Handout, page 2)
Your School Report
Reading/Math/Science Goals 1 and 2
Goal 1
Students achieving proficiency
(FCAT Level 3)
Goal 2
Students achieving above
proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 and 5)
2010
Current
level of
performance
2010
Current
level of
performance
2011
Expected
level of
performance
2011
Expected
level of
performance
2010-2011 SIP Part II –Expected Improvement Criteria
Reading, Math, and Science Goals
Goal
Data
Current
Source Performance
2011 Improvement Criteria
P 0-75
Levels 3-5 increase by 10% of non-proficient
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and Levels 4-5 increase by 5% of non-proficient)
1
&
2
2010
FCAT
Report
P76-85
Levels 3-5 increase by 2 percentage points
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and levels 4-5 increase by 1 percentage point)
P86-95
Levels 3-5 increase by 1 percentage point
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and levels 4-5 increase by 0.5 percentage point)
P96-100
Maintain
(Levels 3-5)
2010 Performance
L345
40%
L12
60%
Goal 1: L3
Goal 2: L45
30%
10%
10% of 60
is 6
Safe Harbor Target Proficient
2010
L345
40%
2011
L12
60%
Goal 1: L3
Goal 2: L45
30%
10%
10% of 60
is 6
10% of
non-proficient of prior year
The percent of nonproficient
students
L345
L12
40+6=46
60-6=54
decreased by at
least 10% from the
L12
Goal 1: L3
preceding year
30+3=33
54%
Goal 2: L45
10+3=13
Safe Harbor Target Proficient
2010
L345
55%
2011
L12
45%
Goal 1: L3
Goal 2: L45
40%
15%
10% of 45
is 4.5
10% of
non-proficient of prior year
L345
55+4.5=59.5
L12
45-4.5=40.5
Goal 2: L45
Goal 1: L3
40+2.25=
42.25
15+2.25=
17.25
L12
40.5
(Green-Handout, page 15)
Group
2009
% Prof.
Reading
2010
% Prof.
Reading
1
2
60%
40%
64%
45%
3
4
5
58%
45%
38%
60%
55%
45%
6
7
8
40%
50%
63%
44%
52%
67%
9
10
35%
20%
39%
30%
2009
NonProficiency
Students
10% Target
Reduction
% Safe
Harbor
Proficiency
Targets
Did the
group meet
2010 AYP?
Group
2009
% Prof.
Reading
2010
% Prof.
Reading
2009
% NonProficiency
Students
10% Target
Reduction
% Safe
Harbor
Proficiency
Targets
Did the
group meet
2010 AYP?
1
2
60%
40%
64%
45%
40
60
4.0
6.0
64.0
46.0
Yes
No
3
4
5
58%
45%
38%
60%
55%
45%
42
55
62
4.2
5.5
6.2
62.2
50.5
44.2
No
Yes
Yes
6
7
8
40%
50%
63%
44%
52%
67%
60
50
37
6.0
5.0
3.7
46.0
55.0
66.7
No
No
Yes
9
10
35%
20%
39%
30%
65
80
6.5
8.0
41.5
28.0
No
Yes
Reading, Math, and Science Goals
Goal
Data
Current
Source Performance
2011 Improvement Criteria
P 0-75
Levels 3-5 increase by 10% of non-proficient
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and Levels 4-5 increase by 5% of non-proficient)
1
&
2
2010
FCAT
Report
P76-85
Levels 3-5 increase by 2 percentage points
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and levels 4-5 increase by 1 percentage point)
P86-95
Levels 3-5 increase by 1 percentage point
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and levels 4-5 increase by 0.5 percentage point)
P96-100
Maintain
(Levels 3-5)
Now, let’s take a look
Expected Proficiency
Table
(Green-Handout, page 2)
2011 Expected Proficient Table (HO 2)
This table
can be used
with goal 5
for reading
and math
2011 Expected Proficiency Table
2010
Prof.
(L3-5)
2010
NonProf.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
2011
Points
Expected
Increased Proficient
(L3-5)
7.1
36
7.0
37
6.9
38
6.8
39
6.7
40
6.6
41
6.5
42
6.4
42
6.3
43
6.2
44
6.1
45
6.0
46
5.9
47
5.8
48
5.7
49
FCAT 2010 Point 2011
Level Prof. Gain Prof.
L 3-5
40
6.0
46
L3
25
3.0
28
L 4-5
15
3.0
18
Please note: Adding the
percents in level 3 and Levels
4-5 may not result in the
percents levels 3-5 combined
due to rounding.
Reading, Math, and Science Goals
Goal
Data
Current
Source Performance
2011 Improvement Criteria
P 0-75
Levels 3-5 increase by 10% of non-proficient
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and Levels 4-5 increase by 5% of non-proficient)
1
&
2
2010
FCAT
Report
P76-85
Levels 3-5 increase by 2 percentage points
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and levels 4-5 increase by 1 percentage point)
P86-95
Levels 3-5 increase by 1 percentage point
(Levels 3-5) (level 3 and levels 4-5 increase by 0.5 percentage point)
P96-100
Maintain
(Levels 3-5)
Can you explain the
different between
percent and
percentage points?
Percent (%) vs. Percentage Point
Current
To increase the
percent
current proficiency by
proficient 10%, what would be
the new percent
proficient value?
To increase the
current proficiency
by 10 percentage
points, what would
be the new percent
proficient value?
10% of 20 = 20*.10=2
20
New % = 20+2=22
20+10=30
10% of 75 = 75*.10=7.5
75
New % = 75+7.5=82.5
75+10=85
Percent (%) vs. Percentage point (HO 3)
Current
percent
proficient
1.
2.
30%
50%
3.
4.
5.
65%
25%
80%
6.
7.
8.
43%
15%
78%
9.
15%
10.
37%
To increase the current
proficiency by 10%,
what would be the new
percent proficient
value?
To increase the current
proficiency by 10
percentage points, what
would be the new percent
proficient value?
Percent (%) vs. Percentage point
Current
percent
proficient
To increase the current
proficiency by 10%, what
would be the new percent
proficient value?
To increase the current
proficiency by 10
percentage points, what
would be the new percent
proficient value?
1.
2.
30% 30+(30*10/100)=33
50% 50+(50*10/100)=55
30+10=40
50+10=60
3.
4.
5.
65% 65+(65*10/100)=71.5
25% 25+(25*10/100)=27.5
80% 80+(80*10/100)=88
65+10=75
25+10=35
80+10=90
6.
7.
8.
43% 43+(43*10/100)=47.3
15% 15+(15*10/100)=16.5
78% 78+(78*10/100)=85.8
43+10=53
15+10=25
78+10=88
9.
10.
15% 15+(15*10/100)=16.5
37% 37+(37*10/100)=40.7
15+10=25
37+10=47
Attendance Goal (HO Buff Color )
Data
Source
Goal 1
Current
2011 Improvement
Performance
Criteria
P01.00 - 90.99 Increase by 3% points.
Average
Daily
Attendance
Rate
P91.00 - 93.99 Increase by 1% point
P94.00 - 96.99 Increase by 0.5% point
COG
NOS
P97.00 - 100 Maintain
(As of
Excessive
June 1, Absences
# of Students
Reduce by 5 Percent
2010) (10 or more)
Excessive
Tardiness
# of Students
(10 or more)
Reduce by 5 Percent
Suspension Goal (HO Buff Color)
Data
Source
Goal 1
In-School
COG Suspensions
Current
Performance
Number of
Suspensions
2011
Improvement
Criteria
Reduce by 10
percent
Number of Students Reduce by 10
(unduplicated)
percent
NOS
(As of
Number of
Reduce by 10
June
Suspensions
percent
1,
2010) Out-of-School Number of Students Reduce by 10
Suspensions
(unduplicated)
percent
Dropout Prevention
Goal High School Only
Data
Source
Goal 1
Dropout Rate
Current
Performance
P 0-100
COG
NOS
(As of
P01-84
June 2008-09 NGA
Graduation
1,
2010) Rate
P 85 to 100
2011
Improvement
Criteria
Reduce by 0.5
percentage point
Increase by 2
percentage points
Maintain
Now, let’s take a look
Your School Report File
Reading
Goal
Description
1
% FCAT
Level 3
2
% FCAT
Levels 4 and 5
2010
Met
AYP++
2010
2011
Current
Expected
Performance Performance
NA
34%
(107)
35%
(112)
NA
36%
(113)
37%
(118)
Number of students the percentage represents
Steps to calculate 2011 Performance
1
2
• Calculate
• Calculate
the sum of
the
2010 level
expected
3 students
gain based
across
on the
grades
2011
criteria
• 107 out of
317
• 1.55
• Convert to
% = 33.75%
3
4
• Calculate
• Calculate
2011
2011
expected %
number of
students
• 33.75+1.55
the
= 35.3%
percentage
represents
• .353*317 =
112
2011 Number of Proficient Students
Group
2011 Expected
% Proficient
2011 Total Number
of Students in
Tested Grade
1
2
3
60%
40%
58%
350
350
350
4
5
6
45%
38%
42%
350
350
350
7
8
9
50%
63%
35%
350
350
350
10
20%
350
Calculation
Process
2011 Number of
proficient students
2011 Number of Proficient Students (Answers)
Group
2011 Expected
% Proficient
2011 Total Number
of Students in
Tested Grade
Calculation
Process
2011 Number of
proficient students
1
2
3
60%
40%
58%
350
350
350
(60/100)*350
(40/100)*350
(58/100)*350
210
140
203
4
5
6
45%
38%
42%
350
350
350
(45/100)*350
(38/100)*350
(42/100)*350
158
133
147
7
8
9
50%
63%
35%
350
350
350
(50/100)*350
(63/100)*350
(35/100)*350
175
221
123
10
20%
350
(20/100)*350
70
Rounding Number
Student
Tested
600
Real Percent
29.5 29.6 29.7 29.8 29.9 30 30.1 30.2 30.3 30.4
Value Proficient
Face Percent
30
Value Proficient
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
# of
Real students
177 178 178 179 179 180 181 181 182 182
value represent
the %
# of
Face students
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
Value represent
the %
Now, let’s take a look
Expected Improvement
Criteria for Goals 3-4
Learning Gains
Percentage of Students Making Learning
Gains
Goals
3-4
Data Source
Current
Performance
Expected Improvement Criteria
P 0-80
Increase by 10
percentage points
P81-100
Maintain
2010
School
Grade
Reading
Goal
Description
3
Overall Learning
Gains
4
Low25 % Learning
Gains
2010
Met
AYP++
2010
2011
Current
Expected
Performance Performance
NA
80%
(140)
90%
(158)
NA
74%
(32)
84%
(37)
See comments on the school file regarding total
number of students tested.
Status
2010
Status 2009
(Performance)
FCAT
2009
Baseline
Sept. 2009
Annual
Learning
Gains
Interim Assessment
Oct. 2009
Interim Assessment
Jan. 2010
2009-10 School Year
FCAT
2010
Elementary, K-8, and Middle Only
2009 FCAT
Grade 3
2010 FCAT
Grade 4
DSS Gains
Reading
Learning
Gains
Level 5
Level 5
-200
Y
?
Level 5
Level 4
95
N
?
Level 3
Level 3
-25
Y
?
Level 2
Level 2
50
?
N
Level 1
Level 1
235
Y
?
High School Only
2008 FCAT
Grade 8
2009 FCAT
Grade 9
DSS Gains
Math Learning
Gains
Level 5
Level 5
-200
Y
?
Level 5
Level 4
95
N
?
Level 3
Level 3
-25
Y
?
Level 2
Level 2
50
?
N
Level 1
Level 1
55
Y
?
• Maintain high
standards
• Demonstrate more
than one year’s
growth (using the
developmental scale
score gains) when
remaining in
achievement level 1
or 2 for both years.
2010 Achievement Level
• Improve achievement
Levels
5
    
4
    
3
    
2
1



1


  
   
2
3
4
5
2009 Achievement Level
and Reading
Grade
Annual
Learning Gains
for FCAT
Achievement
Levels 1 and 2
Reading
Math
3 to 4
231
163
4 to 5
167
120
5 to 6
134
96
6 to 7
111
79
(Do not use for
7 to 8
93
65
retained students)
8 to 9
78
55
9 to 10
78
49
Mathematics FCAT Worksheet (ELEM only)
Student
Student
Grade
Achievement
Developmental
Level
Scale Scores (DSS)
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 Change
1
04
05
3
2
1460
1527
67
2
04
05
5
5
2160
2046
-114
3
04
05
1
1
1062
1343
281
4
04
05
2
3
1399
1692
293
5
04
05
3
4
1596
1824
228
6
04
05
4
4
1832
1824
-8
7
04
05
1
2
1101
1461
360
8
04
05
2
2
1425
1551
126
9
05
05
2
2
1337
1416
79
10
04
05
1588
NA
11
04
05
3
1
1617
1305
-312
12
04
05
1
1
1180
1385
205
13
04
05
1
1
1220
1291
71
14
04
05
3
3
1456
1730
274
15
04
05
5
4
2011
1923
-88
2
2009-10 Meeting High
Standards for School
Grade
2009-10 Making
Annual Learning
Gains
2009-10 Meeting
AYP Standards
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Mathematics FCAT Worksheet (ELEM) - Answer
Student
Student
Grade
Achievement
Developmental
Level
Scale Scores (DSS)
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 Change
1
04
05
3
2
1460
1527
67
2
04
05
5
5
2160
2046
-114
3
04
05
1
1
1062
1343
281
4
04
05
2
3
1399
1692
293
5
04
05
3
4
1596
1824
228
6
04
05
4
4
1832
1824
-8
7
04
05
1
2
1101
1461
360
8
04
05
2
2
1425
1551
126
9
05
05
2
2
1337
1416
79
10
04
05
1588
NA
11
04
05
3
1
1617
1305
-312
12
04
05
1
1
1180
1385
205
13
04
05
1
1
1220
1291
71
14
04
05
3
3
1456
1730
274
15
04
05
5
4
2011
1923
-88
2
2009-10 Meeting High
Standards for School
Grade
2009-10 Making
Annual Learning
Gains
2009-10 Meeting
AYP Standards
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
NA
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Mathematics FCAT Worksheet (Middle School only)
Student
Student
Grade
Achievement
Developmental
Level
Scale Scores (DSS)
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 Change
1
6
7
2
2
1661
1676
15
2
6
7
4
3
1919
1926
7
3
6
7
1
1
1265
1502
237
4
6
7
1
3
1295
1853
558
5
7
7
1
1
1382
1502
120
6
6
7
3
2
1717
1748
31
7
6
7
1
1
1269
1382
113
8
7
7
2
2
1676
1748
72
9
6
7
4
4
1902
1939
37
10
6
7
1
1
1256
958
-298
11
6
7
2
3
1687
1930
243
12
6
7
3
3
1751
1870
119
1676
NA
1644
9
13
7
2
14
6
7
2
15
6
7
3
1
1635
1786
NA
2009-10 Meeting High
Standards for School
Grade
2009-10 Making
Annual Learning
Gains
2009-10 Meeting
AYP Standards
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Mathematics FCAT Worksheet (Middle School) - Answer
Student
Student
Grade
Achievement
Developmental
Level
Scale Scores (DSS)
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 Change
1
6
7
2
2
1661
1676
15
2
6
7
4
3
1919
1926
7
3
6
7
1
1
1265
1502
237
4
6
7
1
3
1295
1853
558
5
7
7
1
1
1382
1502
120
6
6
7
3
2
1717
1748
31
7
6
7
1
1
1269
1382
113
8
7
7
2
2
1676
1748
72
9
6
7
4
4
1902
1939
37
10
6
7
1
1
1256
958
-298
11
6
7
2
3
1687
1930
243
12
6
7
3
3
1751
1870
119
1676
NA
1644
9
13
7
2
14
6
7
2
15
6
7
3
1
1635
1786
NA
2009-10 Meeting High
Standards for School
Grade
2009-10 Making
Annual Learning
Gains
2009-10 Meeting
AYP Standards
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
NA
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
NA
No
NA
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
NA
Mathematics FCAT Worksheet (High School only)
Student
Student
Grade
Achievement
Developmental
Level
Scale Scores (DSS)
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 Change
1
8
9
3
2
1894
1880
-14
2
8
9
1
1
1452
1499
47
3
8
9
3
3
1961
1903
-58
4
8
9
2
3
1850
1903
53
5
8
9
3
2
1851
1898
47
6
9
9
2
2
1782
1848
66
7
8
9
1
1
1025
1238
213
8
8
9
1
2
1705
1782
77
9
9
9
1
1
1720
1780
60
10
8
9
4
3
2001
2022
21
11
8
9
5
5
2192
2142
-50
12
8
9
1757
NA
13
8
9
3
4
1981
2050
69
14
8
9
5
3
2093
1934
-159
15
9
9
1
1
1734
1780
46
1
2009-10 Meeting High
Standards for School
Grade
2009-10 Making
Annual Learning
Gains
2009-10 Meeting
AYP Standards
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
Mathematics FCAT Worksheet (High School) - Answer
Student
Student
Grade
Achievement
Developmental
Level
Scale Scores (DSS)
2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 2008-09 2009-10 Change
1
8
9
3
2
1894
1880
-14
2
8
9
1
1
1452
1499
47
3
8
9
3
3
1961
1903
-58
4
8
9
2
3
1850
1903
53
5
8
9
3
2
1851
1898
47
6
9
9
2
2
1782
1848
66
7
8
9
1
1
1025
1238
213
8
8
9
1
2
1705
1782
77
9
9
9
1
1
1720
1780
60
10
8
9
4
3
2001
2022
21
11
8
9
5
5
2192
2142
-50
12
8
9
1757
NA
13
8
9
3
4
1981
2050
69
14
8
9
5
3
2093
1934
-159
15
9
9
1
1
1734
1780
46
1
2009-10 Meeting High
Standards for School
Grade
2009-10 Making
Annual Learning
Gains
2009-10 Meeting
AYP Standards
Yes/No
Yes/No
Yes/No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
NA
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Which students are included?
 All students enrolled the
same school for a full
academic year (Matching
Student ID in Feb. FTE
file to Oct. FTE file)
 Have both a prior year
score and current year
score
 Are ranked in the lowest
25% based on their prior
year FCAT DSS scores
(separate by grade), and
 Have a prior year score
less than or equal to an
achievement level 3
score.
Grade 4
Grade 5
Grade 6
Grade 7
Grade 8
Grade 5
Grade 6 + R6
Grade 7 + R7
High DSS
High DSS
High DSS
Low25%
Low25%
Low25%
Grade 9
Grade 10
Grade 10 (Retained)
(Failed FCAT)
Grade 8
Grade 9+R9
Grade 10
High DSS
High DSS
High DSS
Low25%
Low25%
Low25%
School Grade A
(525 – 800)
School Grades
B (495 to 524)
or C (435 – 494)
• Must show adequate progress
of the low25% in both reading
and math for the current year
• Must show adequate progress
of the low25% in both reading
and math for either the current
or previous year
Not for High School
At least 50% of
students:
• have made annual
learning gain
At least 40% and
less than 50% of
students:
• have made learning gains and this
percentage is higher than the prior
year percentage by 1percentage
point.
Lest than 40% of
students:
• have made learning gains and the
percentage is higher than the prior
year percentage by 5percentage
points.
Now, let’s take a look at
2011 School Grade Goal
Click on “2011 School Grade Goal Sheet Tab”
Now, let’s take a look
Expected Improvement
Criteria Goal 5
(Green Handout, page 1)
Reading and Math, Goal 5
Student subgroups not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
5A
Ethnicity
White
Black
Hispanic
Asian
American
Indian
5B
ELL
5C
SWD
5D
ED
Reading and Math: Goal 5A to 5D (HO 1)
Goal
Data
Current
Source Performance
2011 Improvement Criteria
P 0-75
Levels 3-5 increase by 10% of non-proficient
(Levels 3-5)
5
2010
AYP
Report
P76-85
Levels 3-5 increase by 2 percentage points
(Levels 3-5)
P86-95
Levels 3-5 increase by 1 percentage point
(Levels 3-5)
P96-100
Maintain
(Levels 3-5)
2011 Expected Proficiency Table
2010
Prof.
(L3-5)
2010
NonProf.
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
60
59
58
57
2011
Points
Expected
Increased Proficient
(L3-5)
7.1
36
7.0
37
6.9
38
6.8
39
6.7
40
6.6
41
6.5
42
6.4
42
6.3
43
6.2
44
6.1
45
6.0
46
5.9
47
5.8
48
5.7
49
Sub 2010 Point 2011
Grp. Prof. Gain Prof.
BLK
35
6.5
42
ELL
43
5.7
49
ED
29
7.1
36
Please note: Adding the
percents in level 3 and Levels
4-5 may not result in the
percents levels 3-5 combined
due to rounding.
Reading
Goal
5A
5A
5B
Description
BLACK**
HISP.**
ELL**
++ Yes-AB:
Yes-SH:
Yes-GM:
No:
NA:
2010
Met
AYP++
2010
2011
Current
Expected
Performance Performance
NO
64%
(133)
68%
(141)
Yes-AB
72%
(50)
75%
(52)
Yes-SH
56%
(55)
60%
(59)
Met AYP by Annual Benchmark
Met AYP by Safe Harbor
Met AYP by Growth Model
Not making AYP
Not Applicable
Which group is eligible for AYP?
Math
Subgroup
# of Students
% of Students
Eligibility
TOTAL
945
Yes
WHITE
55
6%
No
BLACK
410
43%
Yes
HISP.
475
50%
Yes
ASIAN
5
0%
No
AM. IND.
0
0%
No
ECO DIS.
740
78%
Yes
ELL
108
11%
Yes
SWD
195
21%
Yes
85
• The number of students
School Eligibility
with valid test scores in
reading/math is > 10.
(Total Group)
Subgroup
Eligibility
• Min. of 30 students and
represents more than
15% of tested population,
or at least 100 students.
?
Students must be a full-year-enrolled students
(October and February FTE)
86
Example of Subgroup Eligibility
Math
Subgroup
# of Students
% of Students
Eligibility
TOTAL
945
Yes
WHITE
55
6%
No
BLACK
410
43%
Yes
HISP.
475
50%
Yes
ASIAN
5
0%
No
AM. IND.
0
0%
No
ECO DIS.
740
78%
Yes
ELL
108
11%
Yes
SWD
195
21%
Yes
87
White
ED
Black
ELL-Students
EDwho are ESOL levels 1-4
Economically
andSWD
who are NOT the first year LEP
Students
Disadvantaged
studentswith
and those who exited the
Total
Disabilities,
ESOL
Studentsprogram within 2Hispanic
years of the
eligible
other than
for free
assessment.
(First
orgifted
reduced
year LEP students are included
price
in the
lunch.
participation rate for AYP.)
ELL
Am.
Indian
SWD
Asian
Multi-Eth.?
District Performance in Reading and Math
School Grade
% Meeting High Standards
AYP
Total Group
Year
Reading
% L3-5
Math
%L 3-5
Year
Reading
%
Proficient
Math
%
Proficient
2009
62%
69%
2009
57%
64%
Which students?
FCAT unedited: Include all students tested
FCAT, ALL TESTED
AYP
AYP
Include only students who are in
your school for a full academic year
(Oct. FTE and Feb. FTE) and who are
NOT the first year LEP students.
School Grade
Include only students who are in your
school for a full academic year
Criteria for meeting high standards only,
School
Grade
include students who are:
Standard curriculum
ESE:
Speech impaired (F)
Gifted (L)
Hospital homebound (M)
ELL who have been in an ESOL
program for more than two years
Now, let’s take a look
Expected Improvement
Criteria for Writing
Goal 1
(Green-Handout, page 1)
Writing Goal 1 (HO Buff Color)
Goal
Data
Current
Source Performance
2011 Improvement Criteria
P 0-80
Increase by 10 percentage points
(Levels 3-6)
1
2010
FCAT
Report
P81-89
Increase by 1 percentage point
(Levels 3-6)
P90-100
Maintain
(Levels 3-6)
Writing
Goal
Description
1
% FCAT
Levels 3.0 to 6.0
2010
Met
AYP++
NA
2010
2011
Current
Expected
Performance Performance
65%
(30)
75%
(49)
Writing Goals 2A to 2D (HO Buff Color)
Goal
2
Data
Current
Source Performance
2010
AYP
Report
2011 Improvement Criteria
P 0-89
Increase by 1 percentage point
(Levels 3-6)
P90-100
Maintain
(Levels 3-6)
Writing
Goal
Description
2010
Met
AYP*
2A
Black**
Yes
2B
ELL**
2D
ED**
2010
Current
Performance
2011
Expected
Performance
Yes
94%
(33)
94%
(33)
NO
89%
(89)
90%
(90)
*Yes if proficient is improved by 1% point.
**State does not provide data for proficiency values <=5% and >=95%
In order to maintain the anonymity and privacy of students
2011 SIP Part II
Student Learning
Demographics
Reading
Attendance
Math
Suspensions
Writing
Dropout
Prevention
Science
Parent
Involvement
2011 SIP Part II – Goal Area
Attendance
• Attendance Rate
• Number of Students
with Excessive
Absences
• Number of Students
with Excessive
Tardiness
Suspension
• Total Number of InSchool Suspensions
• Total Number of
Students Suspended
In-School
• Total Number of
Out-of-School
Suspensions
• Total Number of
Students Suspended
Out-of-School
Dropout Prevention
(High School Only)
• Dropout Rate
• Graduation Rate
(NGA computation)
Parent Involvement
Schools provide
their own data.
Attendance Goal (HO Buff Color )
Data
Source
Goal 1
Current
2011 Improvement
Performance
Criteria
P01.00 - 90.99 Increase by 3% points.
Average
Daily
Attendance
Rate
P91.00 - 93.99 Increase by 1% point
P94.00 - 96.99 Increase by 0.5% point
COG
NOS
P97.00 - 100 Maintain
(As of
Excessive
June 1, Absences
# of Students
Reduce by 5 Percent
2010) (10 or more)
Excessive
Tardiness
# of Students
(10 or more)
Reduce by 5 Percent
Suspension Goal
Data
Source
Goal 1
In-School
COG Suspensions
Current
Performance
Number of
Suspensions
2011
Improvement
Criteria
Reduce by 10
percent
Number of Students Reduce by 10
(unduplicated)
percent
NOS
(As of
Number of
Reduce by 10
June
Suspensions
percent
1,
2010) Out-of-School Number of Students Reduce by 10
Suspensions
(unduplicated)
percent
Dropout Prevention
Goal High School Only
Data
Source
Goal 1
Dropout Rate
Current
Performance
P 0-100
COG
NOS
(As of
P01-84
June 2008-09 NGA
Graduation
1,
2010) Rate
P 85 to 100
2011
Improvement
Criteria
Reduce by 0.5
percentage point
Increase by 2
percentage point
Maintain
Guiding Questions to Inform the
Problem-Solving Process
• From the 2011 SIP
folder, double click
on “Final 20102011 SIP”
• Go to page 9
Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
 Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved proficiency (FCAT
Level 3)?
 Based on 2010 FCAT data, what percentage of students achieved above proficiency
(FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
 Based on a comparison of 2009 FCAT data and 2010 FCAT data, what was the
percent increase or decrease of students maintaining proficiency (FCAT Levels 3, 4,
5)?
 What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the percentage of students maintaining
proficiency (FCAT Level 3) or moving above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5) on
the 2011 FCAT?
 For students scoring FCAT Levels 1 or 2, what strategies will be implemented to
provide remediation and increase achievement to proficiency (FCAT Level 3)?
 For students scoring FCAT Level 3, what strategies will be implemented to maintain
proficiency and/or increase achievement to above proficiency (FCAT Levels 4 or 5)?
 For students scoring FCAT Levels 4 or 5, what strategies will be implemented to
Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
What percentage of students achieved proficiency
(2010 FCAT level 3)?
What percentage of students achieved above
proficiency (2010 FCAT levels 4 and 5)?
What was the percentage point increase or decrease
of students maintaining proficiency from 2009 to
2010 FCAT Levels 3, 4, and 5?
What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the
percentage of students maintaining proficiency or
moving above proficiency on 2011 FCAT?
Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
For students scoring FCAT Levels 1 or 2, what
strategies will be implemented to provide
remediation and increase achievement to proficiency
(FCAT Level 3)?
For students scoring FCAT Level 3, what strategies
will be implemented to maintain proficiency and/or
increase achievement to above proficiency (L 4-5)?
For students scoring FCAT L 4-5, what strategies will
be implemented to main above proficiency and
provide enrichment?
Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
What % of students made Learning gains?
What was the percentage point increase or decrease
of students making learning gains?
What are the anticipated barriers to increasing the
percentage of students making learning gains?
What strategies will be implemented to increasing
learning gains for these students?
Guiding Questions to Inform the Problem-Solving Process
Which student subgroups did not meet
AYP targets?
What are the anticipated barriers to
increasing the number of subgroups
making AYP?
What strategies will be used to ensure
students make AYP?
Problem Solving Process
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Reading
• Define the Problem (Green-handout, page 4)
Students have difficulty comprehending what they read.
1. Why is this happening?
2.
Why is that?
3.
Why is that?
4.
Why is that?
5.
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Math
• Define the Problem (Green-handout, page 4)
Students have difficulty solving problems related to adding
fractions.
1. Why is this happening?
2.
Why is that?
3.
Why is that?
4.
Why is that?
5.
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Reading
• Define the Problem:
Students have difficulty comprehending what they read.
1. Why is it happening?
2. Lack of vocabulary – Why is that?
3. Lack of reading independently - Why is that?
4. Lack of interest - Why is that?
5. Do not have reading materials
available that match with their
independently reading level
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Reading
Problem:
• Students have difficulty comprehending what they
read.
Action:
1. Provide reading material that match students’
independent reading level.
2. Allow students to self-select reading materials.
3. Provide students with strategies to help increase
vocabulary.
4. Provide time for students to read independently
and discuss what they have read including new
vocabulary they have learn.
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Math
• Define the Problem:
Students have difficulty solving problems related to adding
fractions.
1. Why is this happening?
2.
Why is that?
3.
Why is that?
4.
Why is that?
5.
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Math
• Define the Problem:
Students have difficulty solving problems related to adding
fractions.
1. Why is this happening?
2. There is no meaning for why students need to
do it. – Why is that?
3. They haven’t had personal experiences
which requires them to add fractions. Why is that?
4. They haven’t had an opportunity to talk
about fractions in their real-world
context.
5-Whys? Root Cause Analysis - Math
• Define the Problem:
Students have difficulty solving problems related to adding
fractions.
Actions:
1. In the first minutes of class, have students, working in teams,
discuss real-world situations in which fractions are used.
2. Provide a “cool” (unique) real-world situation in which
fractions must be utilized.
3. Ask the teams to discuss the problem.
4. Have students, working in teams, create their own real-world
problems (with solutions) involving fractions. Teams might
make presentations of the problems they created or teams
might give their problems to other teams to solve and report
to the entire class.
5 Whys? Key Points
Use the 5 Whys? to get to the root cause.
Correcting a symptom, instead of the
real problem, wastes resources.
Correcting a root cause gets rid of problems
permanently.
Watch out for bias
Spend time finding the right person
to answer your questions.
Be careful not to rely only on the 5 Whys
for critical problems.
From Velaction Continuous Improvement, LLC.
Green-handout, page 19
SIP Goal Areas
AYP and School Grade
• 2011 Improvement Criteria
• % Criteria Met Calculation
• 2011 Expected Level of
Performance
• Safe Harbor Proficiency
Target
• Guiding Questions
• Annual Learning Gains
• Root Cause Analysis
• 2011 Expected School
Grade
SIP Goal Areas
AYP and School Grade
• 2011 Improvement Criteria
• % Criteria Met Calculation
• 2011 Expected Level of
Performance
• Safe Harbor Proficiency
Target
• New School Grade
Components
• Annual Learning Gains
• 2011 Expected School
Grade
Please
complete the
evaluation
form