2011-2012 data dialogues stan masters lenawee isd february 10, 2012

44
2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Upload: dayna-davis

Post on 11-Jan-2016

217 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

2011-2012 Data Dialogues

Stan MastersLenawee ISD

February 10, 2012

Page 2: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Data Driven Dialoguedi·a·logue or di·a·log n. Abbr. dial. 1. A conversation between two or more people. 2. An exchange of ideas or opinions: achieving constructive dialogue with all parties present. --di·a·logue v.

Deb Clancy, Washtenaw ISD, 2008

Page 3: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Ways of Talking

Normsof

Collaboration

Dialogue Discussion

Outcome:Deep

Understanding

Outcome:DecisionsThat Stick

Culture of Collaboration

Conversation

Deliberation

The Center for Adaptive Schools www.adaptiveschools.com

Page 4: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Listening Respectfully

Ear of the

Attentive

Listener

Rectitude of the Heart

Eye that is Unswerving

Page 5: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Third Grade Reading Readiness

Page 6: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

New Cut Scores for ReadingGrade

3Grade

4Grade

5Grade

6Grade

7Grade

8MME

Advanced 364 478 565 653 760 853 1141

Proficient 324 419 521 619 721 818 1108

Partially Proficient

301 395 501 602 698 796 1081

Page 7: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

9591

8084 85

78

52

8784 85 84

7982

63

78 78

61

75 7478

3537

3936 36

29 28

63 6466

64

56 5754

1714

2628

33

42

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 11th 3rd 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 11th 5th 8th 11th 6th 9th 11th

Math Reading Science Social Studies

Per

cen

t P

rofi

cien

tMEAP & MME 2010-11 Old & New Cut Scores

Michigan Old Michigan New

Page 8: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Using Local Data to Predict MEAP Success

• Review your local scores for your 2nd graders from 2010-2011

• Know that your target for Fall 2011 MEAP is 324

• Predict which students will pass using color-coding to indicate probability– Dark Green– Light Green– Yellow– Orange– Red

Page 9: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Elementary Principals Study 3rd Grade Reading Readiness

Last NameFirst

NameAIMSweb S-RCBM (90)

AIMSweb S-Maze (14)

Dolch % 100% of all 4 lists

DRA Independent Lev. (28)

Spelling Inven. %

70 12 100 14 86173 23 100 15 97212 30 100 17 10068 11 100 28 7373 9 100 28 87

Page 10: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

How well do the existing local assessments predict success on the

Grade 3 Reading MEAP?

Page 11: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Predictions

Observations

Inferences

I predict . . .

I can count . . .

I believe that the data suggests . . . because, …

Page 12: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

91% 89%

82% 81%

77%73% 71%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percent Proficient

Percentage of Students Proficient on Local Assessment at EOY 2010 2nd Grade

and Proficient on Fall 2011 MEAP Reading

STAR Reading Grade Equivalency (2.8)

NWEA Reading Lexile (450)

NWEA Reading RIT Score (190)

DIBELS Oral Reading Fluency (90)

AIMSWeb MAZE (14)

DIBELS Next DORF Words Correct (87)

DRA (28)

Page 13: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

MEAP Reading Domains

• Word Study– Use strategies to

construct meaning– Determine meaning of

words and phrases in context

• Narrative Text– Describe genre– Describe elements

of story– Describe use of literary

devices

• Informational Text– Describe genre– Describe use of text

features

• Comprehension– Retell main idea and

relevant details– Compare/contrast

relationships across texts– Apply knowledge across

subjects

Page 14: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Range of Student Scores onNWEA Reading Goal RIT Scores

Who Were Also Proficient on Fall 2011 Reading MEAP Strand "Green" Scores

Word Study 167-221Narrative Text 168-226

Informational Text 161-230Comprehension 167-227

Page 15: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Standard/Cluster Average

Michigan MA.4.N.ME.04.05 ( 4 ) 74%

Michigan MA.4.N.MR.04.07 ( 4 ) 43%

Michigan MA.4.N.ME.04.09 ( 4 ) 42%

Michigan MA.4.N.FL.04.11 ( 4 ) 29%

Michigan MA.4.N.FL.04.12 ( 4 ) 31%

Michigan MA.4.N.ME.04.15 ( 4 ) 43%

Michigan MA.4.N.MR.04.22 ( 4 ) 76%

Michigan MA.4.N.MR.04.19 ( 4 ) 10%

Sand Creek Ruth McGregor Data Dialogues

[We] have decided for now to meet with our teachers during

one of their grade level meeting times and hold the

monthly Data Meetings at that time.   The smaller setting

worked great for our teachers – truly had good discussion

about data[…] They also seemed to be willing to doing a case study on one student

and bring that knowledge back to the table in a month.

 Overall,  it was great professional conversations.” 

33

DORF Retell 65Grade 3 Comprehension 5

25

14

4th Grade Math PreTest

Page 16: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Morenci Elementary Electronic Student Data Profiles

Dolch Word List

3rd Tri

Star Test Grade Equivalent (GE) 3rd Tri

Star Test Independent

Reading Level 3rd Tri

AR Comp% 3rd

Tri

Math 3rd Tri % Post

Test

Addition Facts 3rd

Tri %

Subtraction Facts 3rd Tri

%

Multiplication Facts 3rd Tri %

Division Facts 3rd Tri

%

Writing 3rd Tri

Special Services

Recommendations

100 3.2 3.2 86 84 80 84 57 48 2 TITLE I

100 4.6 4.2 69 62 100 99 90 97 2 TITLE I PR

100 4.6 4.2 89 74 49 71 65 54 2

100 6.2 5.5 89 86 100 95 100 99 1 speech PR

100 3.1 3 79 86 99 100 100 92 2 TITLE I PR

Page 17: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Data Driven Decision Making in Early Literacy Teaching, Fall RDI Symposium

http://www.gomiem.org/files/handouts/g_1.pdf

• Current use of data used more to inform decision on intervention groups than to pace or change content

• Current collaboration time is limited• Collaboration with literacy expert had

most impact on teachers’ data use• The most effective schools allocated time

for structured teacher collaboration around data analysis and instructional planning

Page 18: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Assessment Calendars

Page 19: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Growth Models

Page 20: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Pre - Post Procedures• Administered before and after instruction• Look at the scores of individual students

to determine how many had higher post-test scores (Simple Growth Model)

• Compare the percentage to the threshold agreed upon by school/district

• Calculate the mean pre-test score and compare that with the mean post-test score (Simplified Value-Added Growth Model)

Source: Measurement Issues Inherent in Educator Evaluation, Presentation by the Michigan Assessment Consortium to the OEAA Educator Evaluation Best Practices Conference, April 15, 2011.

Page 21: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Sand Creek High SchoolPre-Test and Post-Test

Student Name

Life Skills Pre-test

Life Skills Post-test

Life Skills Growth

Life Skills Writing Pretest

Life Skills Writing Post

test

WritingGrowth

95 95 0 55 64 9

85 90 5 38 92 54

70 75 5 51 65 14

65 76 11 32 116 84

60 65 5 50 54 4

65 70 5 70 80 10

65 50 -15 103 130 27

Page 22: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Onsted Middle School,NWEA Growth, by Teacher, by Class PeriodStudent Name

Teacher Name

Class Period

10-11 NWEAFall Reading

Test RIT Score

10-11 NWEASpring Reading Test RIT Score

10-11 NWEATest RIT Score

Growth

10-11 NWEAFall Reading

Test Percentile

10-11 NWEASpring Reading Test Percentile

10-11 NWEATest Percentile

Growth

7 207 206 -1 15 18 3

2 207 219 12 10 40 30

2 212 202 -10 16 9 -7

1 207 219 12 15 50 35

2 210 213 3 14 25 11

2 220 216 -4 28 32 4

6 226 219 -7 53 50 -3

7 221 214 -7 41 35 -6

6 227 214 -13 56 35 -21

7 225 226 1 51 70 19

2 224 223 -1 36 52 16

6 231 202 -29 66 13 -53

6 232 213 -19 68 33 -35

Page 23: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

“On Target” “Off Target”

College and Career Readiness

Page 24: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

24

College Readiness Benchmark Scores

Early Indicators of College Readiness

EXPLORE PLAN ACT

English English Composition 13 15 18

Reading Social Sciences 15 17 21

Math Algebra 17 19 22

Science Biology 20 21 24

ACT SubjectArea Test College Course(s)

Page 25: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Predictions UsingEXPLORE to PLAN to ACT

• Uses scores in each subject area• Use color-coding to indicate probability

– Dark Green– Light Green– Yellow– Orange– Red

Page 26: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Reasonable Growth

• “On Target” • (met or exceeded CRB)

• “Nearly On Target” • (<2 points from CRB)

• “Off Target” • (>2 points from CRB)

Page 27: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Average Growth PointsBetween Tests

“On Target” (met or exceeded CRB)

“Nearly On Target” (<2 points from CRB)

“Off Target” (>2 points from CRB)

Test EXPLORE to PLAN

PLAN to ACT

EXPLORE to PLAN

PLAN to ACT

EXPLORE to PLAN

PLAN to ACT

English 2-3 2-3 3-4 1 3-4 1

Math 2-3 2-3 1-2 1-2 2-3 1-2

Reading 1-2 4-5 3-4 2-3 3-4 1-2

Science 1-2 2-3 1-2 2-3 2-3 1

Page 28: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Secondary Principals Study College and Career Readiness

10-11 PLAN Expected ACT 10-11 PLAN Expected ACT 10-11 PLAN Expected ACT 10-11 PLAN Expected ACT

Last name First name English English Reading Reading Mathematics Mathematics Science Science

16 16-20 17 17-21 14 14-18 16 16-20

17 17-21 17 17-21 20 21-25 21 22-26

22 23-27 20 21-25 21 22-26 21 22-26

16 16-20 14 14-18 16 16-20 20 21-25

10-11 Expected 10-11 Expected 10-11 Expected 10-11 Expected

EXPLORE PLAN EXPLORE PLAN EXPLORE PLAN EXPLORE PLAN

Last name First name English English Reading Reading Mathematics Mathematics Science Science

9 10-13 11 12-15 11 12-15 11 12-1514 15-18 12 13-16 14 15-18 15 16-1914 15-18 14 15-18 17 18-21 16 17-2013 14-17 12 13-16 15 16-19 16 17-2013 14-17 10 11-14 11 12-15 13 14-17

Page 29: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

PLAN and EXPLORE Item Analysis

• Use test booklets from 11-12 testing– Order extra materials for

your staff (no cost)– Review items from the

booklet and the student responses

Page 30: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012
Page 31: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Identify students who need assistance with the testing formats

• Needs identified by students on PLAN test

– Writing– Reading– Math– Study Skills

• Identify students who need assistance with the testing formats

– Writings using ACT rubric– Analyzing data in graphs,

charts, and tables– Use of released items from

MDE– Use of release practice items

from ACT– Strategies for completing

timed portions of ACT – Close and critical reading

strategies from MS/HS Literacy Team

Page 32: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Dropout Prevention

Page 33: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Common Educational Risk FactorsSource: http://www.achieve.org/files/DataDrivenDropoutPreventionPolicy.pdf

• Attendance: High absences and tardies• Behavior: Poor classroom conduct,

office referrals, suspensions• Grades: Failing marks in academic courses• Achievement: Low test scores• Progress: Held back at any point,

falling behind in credits during high school

Page 34: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012
Page 35: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Middle School StudentsPersistently Scoring Below Proficient

110 students in Reading129 students in Math

Page 36: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Suggested Next Steps

• Move from scores to criteria around the scores

• Move from existing rubric/scoring guides to more concise rubric/scoring guides

• Move from individual analysis to team analysis

Page 37: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Common Assessments

A common assessment is an assessment typically created collaboratively by a team of teachers responsible for the same grade level, course, or content area.

Page 38: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

So, do your students know what are the targets for their learning?

Page 39: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Existing Summative and Formative Classroom Assessments Not Aligned with Expectations

Classroom Summative and Formative Assessments Aligned to Expectations

Common Classroom Summative and Formative Assessments Aligned to Expectations

Common Formative and Summative Assessments Aligned to Expectations and

Delivered Online Through DataDirector

Implementing Assessments with DataDirector

Adapted from St. Clair RESA

Page 40: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Developing Common Assessments:

A Design Overview

• Step 1 – Define Purpose• Step 2 – Identify “Fair Game” in Terms of Standards• Step 3 – Balance of Representation• Step 4 – Develop an Assessment Blueprint• Step 5 – Select or Develop Items• Step 6 – Develop the Assessment• Step 7 – Administer and Score the Assessment• Step 8 – Set the Cut Scores

Source: Center for Curriculum Renewal, www.curriculumrenewal.com

Page 41: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Test Blueprint Methods of Assessment

Selected Response

Extended Written Performance Personal

Communication Target Totals

# Points # Points # Points # Points # Points

Learnin

g Targets

Target 1 3 3 2 2 5 5

Target 2 1 1 2 2 2 4 5 7

Target 3 2 2 1 3 3 5

Target 4 3 3 1 2 4 5

Target 5 2 4 1 4 3 8

DOKTotals 6 6 10 14 4 10 0 0 20 30

Page 42: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Reverse Blueprint Design Adrian—Lincoln Elementary

Teacher 1

Page 43: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Excellent Examples

Webb (1997) Depth of Knowledge • Recall • Use • Strategic • Extended

Anderson & Krathwohl (2001)

Revised Bloom’s Taxonomy

Page 44: 2011-2012 Data Dialogues Stan Masters Lenawee ISD February 10, 2012

Questions?Stan MastersCoordinator of

Instructional Data ServicesLenawee Intermediate School DistrictFireside Building4107 N. Adrian HighwayAdrian, Michigan 49921

517-265-1606 (phone)517-265-2953 (fax)[email protected]/links/data