Developing a Data Informed CultureDerry Cooperative School District’s “Story”

Presented by:Mary Ellen Hannon, Superintendent, Derry Cooperative School DistrictNorah Alexander, SunGard Public Sector, K12 Education

Agenda

Introductions

Overview of vision and software tool

Derry Cooperative School District’s Story– Review of process over the past 4 years– How easily accessing data has changed the

culture?

Questions and Answers

Where Did The “Derry” Story Begin?

Derry began not making AYP in Math in 2005-2006 in the Educational Disabilities’ subgroupThe math program was two years old, but was not standards-based or well aligned to the math GLEsIdentified students spent more time in pull out instruction not being given access to the curriculum which aligned to our general education curriculumCurriculum was looked at separately, not in conjunction with assessment data

Schools were site-based in most areas, including instructional practicesTeachers worked independently, not collaborativelyData was brought to schools by central office staff, not analyzed on site by teachers, no central location for all dataData was all summative and rarely used for instructionProfessional development was focused after school, not job embedded

This Is How the Data Looked2005-2006

Math All Groups Grades 3-8

This is How the Data Looked2005-2006

Math Subgroups- IEP

We Began to Focus

What should our focus be to ensure our students are learning?

Our Four Focus Questions based on the Dufour’s PLC model:1. What do we expect students to learn?

2. How do we know if students are learning?

3. How will we respond when students are not learning?

4. How will we respond if they already know it?

The Work Began…Adopting Performance Plus (Pathways)

Adopting Tech Paths-Curriculum MappingYear I

Curriculum Mapping Trainers were recruited at each school siteTraining began on the purpose of mapping- Heidi Hayes Jacobs conferences, videos, training days providedVolunteers were given an opportunity to use the Tech Paths software and map their instructionSharing the information began, but collaboration was not expected

Performance Tracker

Introduction to Performance Tracker

Year I Administrators were introduced to the power of Performance TrackerAlong with introduction to mapping, administrators were trained on becoming proficient using Tracker to analyze assessment dataAdministrators began using Performance Tracker to access their own data rather than waiting for its arrival by central office staff

The Journey ContinuedYear 2: Teachers

Developed Core Maps over the summer with a team of teachersBegan to “Diary Map” over the Core MapMet each week during one planning period to collaboratively plan using the curriculum mapBegan an extensive professional development program using early release daysRolled out Performance Tracker, only for informational purposes

The Journey ContinuedYear 2: Administrators

Continued to deepen understanding in using data to drive instruction

Added NECAP data (state assessment), NWEA testing, and DRA testing to Performance Tracker

Requested principals to begin sharing data using Performance Tracker with teachers at grade level/team meetings

The Third Year

Maps were updated and ‘fine-tuned’ in the summer by the Math Curriculum Team“Mapping Expectations”were rolled out which added more detail required in mapsPrincipals held teachers accountable for completing mapsTeachers received access to Performance Tracker and began training on the connection between assessment data and mapping dataTraining also began on the difference between summative and formative assessment and using data to differentiate instruction

Assessment Builder:Year 4

Need was noted for benchmark assessments to be used as formative assessment throughout the yearBenchmark assessment training began and trimester assessments were developed using Assessment Builder and Content Library based on the standards, content, and skills in the Tech Path Curriculum MapsAssessment results were used to form intervention groups at each grade levelTeachers used Performance Tracker to form groups according to the standards that students did not meet

So What Has Happened?NECAP Comparison

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Whole School 05 IEP 05 Whole School 08 IEP 08

Student Groups

Inde

x Sc

ores State

Derry

District scored below the state in both Whole School and Educational Disability subgroup in 2005In 2008-2009, District scored above state in both groups. Whole school’s index increased by 7.9 pointsEducational Disability subgroup index increased by 7.7 pointsDuring the same time frame the state’s index has increased by 3.9 points and 7 points respectively

Curriculum Maps

Curriculum maps have developed into a rich and dynamic document

The District has used the mapping process to bring focus to curricular weaknesses

All teachers, general ed and special ed, work together collaboratively on maps for a stronger more aligned curriculum for all students

Curriculum Mapping Initiative2005-2006

Grade 5 Math Map- As we began our journey…

Updated Curriculum Map2008-2009

Grade 5 Map that has a focus…

Data Overview2008-2009

Stronger Results:

Math All Grades

Data Overview2008-2009

Stronger Results: Math Subgroup- Students with IEPs

Challenges

Understanding the Need- Early on, teachers struggled learning the technology and understanding the need for mappingTime- Finding the time has always been a challenge and the teachers’ union pushed backTraining- Changing the culture that PD should be done during an after school workshop rather than job embeddedChanging the Culture- Moving to a data driven culture required lots of professional development

Putting the Puzzle Pieces Together?

Continue work on updating maps to make them dynamic and relevantConnecting data to curriculum continues to be a struggle for some staffMaking AYP in all subgroups

Questions

Thank you for your time and attention.