district data carousel - lawrence usd 497 · 2017. 10. 23. · measures of academic progress (map)...
TRANSCRIPT
DISTRICT DATA CAROUSELOCTOBER 23, 2017
Critical Differences Between AIMSweb and Measures of Academic Progress (MAP)AIMSweb is a Universal Screener
Focus is measuring initial understanding and progress of specific skills Reading Example: Letter/Word Sounds Fluency
Do I know what sound “ph” makes when I see “ph”?
Math Example: Addition Can I add 1 column, 2 column, 3 column numbers?
Teachers monitor progress for students not at Benchmark on these skills
MAP is a Screener – however; MAP focus is on measuring growth in the application of the skills within the standards Reading Example: Informational Text
Can I read, comprehend, and answer questions about information-based text?
Math Example: Geometry Given several items to choose from, identify the line that is parallel to the line shown
MAP Measures Growth across test seasons
MAP is aligned to KCCRS and to ACT outcomes
AIMSweb CompositeKindergarten 1st Grade 2nd Grade
Winter
Spring
How Teachers Use This Data to Differentiate Instruction:
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Reading Fall to Spring Medians by Grade
0
50
100
150
200
250
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lawrence 143 164 182 195 205 212 218 222 227
National Norms 141 161 175 188 198 206 211 214 217
143
164
182195
205212
218 222 227
141
161175
188198
206 211 214 217
FALL MAP: Lawrence Compared to National Norms
Lawrence National Norms
0
50
100
150
200
250
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lawrence 162 184 197 204 212 218 222 226 229
National Norms 158 178 189 199 206 212 216 218 220
162
184197
204212
218 222 226 229
158
178189
199206
212 216 218 220
SPRING MAP: Lawrence Compared to National Norms
Lawrence National Norms
0
50
100
150
200
250
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lawrence 143 168 182 194 206 216 221 227 234
National Norms 140 162 177 190 202 211 218 223 226
143
168182
194206
216 221227
234
140
162
177190
202211
218 223 226
FALL MAP: Lawrence Compared to National Norms
Lawrence National Norms
Measures of Academic Progress (MAP): Mathematics Fall to Spring Medians by Grade
0
50
100
150
200
250
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lawrence 166 188 195 207 217 228 226 233 236
National Norms 159 181 192 203 214 221 225 229 233
166
188195
207217
228 226233 236
159
181192
203214
221 225 229 233
SPRING MAP: Lawrence Compared to National Norms
Lawrence National Norms
Fall to Spring Growth by Grade - Reading: Lawrence Compared to National Normative Data
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Our Growth 19 20 15 9 7 6 4 4 2
Growth Norm 17 17 14 10 8 6 5 4 3
1920
15
9
76
4 4
2
17 17
14
10
8
65
43
Our Growth Growth Norm
Fall to Spring Growth by Grade - Mathematics: Lawrence Compared to National Normative Data
0
5
10
15
20
25
K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Lawrence 23 21 14 14 12 12 7 6 4
National Norms 19 18 15 13 12 10 8 6 5
23
21
14 14
12 12
76
4
1918
15
1312
10
8
65
Lawrence National Norms
Average (34th Percentile) or Higher MAP Scoring by Race/Ethnicity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Native Asian Hispanic Black White
Avg. or Higher 62.4 85.3 72 65.1 83.9
Less thah Avg. 37.6 14.7 28 34.9 16.1
62.4
85.3
72
65.1
83.9
37.6
14.7
28
34.9
16.1
MAP Reading: Spring 2017
Avg. or Higher Less thah Avg.
Average (34th Percentile) or Higher MAP Scoring by Race/Ethnicity
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Native Asian Hispanic Black White
Avg. or Higher 48.3 86.3 62 52 80.3
Less than Avg. 51.7 13.7 38 48 19.7
48.3
86.3
62
52
80.3
51.7
13.7
38
48
19.7
MAP Mathematics: Spring 2017
Avg. or Higher Less than Avg.
Kansas Assessment Program
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
ALL 21.9 31.1 32.5 14.6
F/R Lunch 38.4 34.9 21.1 5.6
SWD 65.4 22.1 9.6 3.0
ELL 36.9 31.8 22.3 8.9
Homeless 48.8 34.5 9.5 7.1
21.9
31.132.5
14.6
38.4
34.9
21.1
5.6
65.4
22.1
9.6
3.0
36.9
31.8
22.3
8.9
48.8
34.5
9.57.1
ELA Assessment: Subgroup Performance
ALL F/R Lunch SWD ELL Homeless
0.0
5.0
10.0
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
45.0
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3: Level 4
African-American 40.8 32.5 25.0 1.7
Hispanic 36.8 34.0 20.8 8.4
Asian 17.1 25.9 35.1 22.0
Am. Indian 33.8 39.0 23.1 4.1
White 17.3 30.0 35.9 16.8
Multi 27.0 34.1 25.3 13.8
40.8
32.5
25.0
1.7
36.8
34.0
20.8
8.4
17.1
25.9
35.1
22.0
33.8
39.0
23.1
4.1
17.3
30.0
35.9
16.8
27.0
34.1
25.3
13.8
ELA Assessment: Racial/Ethnic Subgroup Performance
African-American Hispanic Asian Am. Indian White Multi
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
ALL 25.7 34.2 25.3 14.8
F/R Lunch 41.2 37.2 16 5.6
SWD 66 25.2 7.2 1.6
ELL 34.7 32.1 19.2 14
Homeless 48.8 35.7 14.3 1.2
25.7
34.2
25.3
14.8
41.2
37.2
16
5.6
66
25.2
7.2
1.6
34.732.1
19.2
14
48.8
35.7
14.3
1.2
Mathematics Assessment: Subgroup Performance
ALL F/R Lunch SWD ELL Homeless
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4
African-American 47.8 37.4 12.3 2.5
Hispanic 40.1 34.2 17 8
Asian 11 25.6 25.1 38.4
Am.Indian 41.5 39.5 14.4 4.6
White 20.6 34 38.7 16.7
Multi 33.9 34.7 21.7 9.7
47.8
37.4
12.3
2.5
40.1
34.2
17
8
11
25.6 25.1
38.4
41.539.5
14.4
4.6
20.6
34
38.7
16.7
33.9 34.7
21.7
9.7
Mathematics Assessment: Racial/Ethnic Subgroup Performance
African-American Hispanic Asian Am.Indian White Multi
District Equity Audit Data
District Graduation Rate Data
Student Demographics: AbsencesSTUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS – TOTAL EXCUSED ABSENCES – < OR = 10
66.8
6.4
9.6
9.6
3.5
4
Total = 10,684
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
65.2
5.2
9.5
9.6
3.54
Total = 2320
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
Student Demographics: AttendanceSTUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS - TOTAL UNEXCUSED ABSENCES - < OR = 5
66.8
6.4
9.6
9.6
3.5
4
Student Demographics (Total = 10,684)
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
48.8
15.8
12.2
13.6
13
1.6
Total = 596
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
Student Demographics: TardiesSTUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS - TOTAL TARDIES - < OR = 15
66.8
6.4
9.6
9.6
3.5
4
Student Demographics (Total = 10,684)
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
55.8
11.5
11.7
12.1
6.5
2.1
Total = 1813
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
Discipline: In-School and Out of School SuspensionSTUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS - TOTAL IN-SCHOOL SUSPENSION
66.8
6.4
9.6
9.6
3.5
4
Student Demographics (Total = 10,684)
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
56.6
12.4
12.4
10.3
5.4
1.2
Total Incidents = 523
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
Out of School SuspensionSTUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS - TOTAL OUT OF SCHOOL SUSPENSIONS
66.8
6.4
9.6
9.6
3.5
4
Student Demographics (Total = 10,684)
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
53.2
13.8
15.8
10.4
3.7 2.7
Total Incidents = 297
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
Students with Individual Educational Plans (IEPs)
IEP FOR DISABILITY
59.6
9.1
11.4
11.9
5.2
2.5
Total number = 1467
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
STUDENT DEMOGRAPHICS - TOTAL
66.8
6.4
9.6
9.6
3.5
4
Student Demographics (Total = 10,684)
White Black Multi Hispanic Native Asian
Student Social/Emotional Data: SRSS – E7 and SRSS – I5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
68.89%79.64% 81.02%
21.69%
14.60% 13.03%
9.42% 5.77% 5.96%
% o
f St
ud
en
ts S
cre
en
ed
Screening Time Point
SRSS-E7 Results - All Students
LOW (0-3) MODERATE (4-8) HIGH (9-21)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
69.72%78.37% 79.02%
19.81%15.52% 14.53%
10.47% 6.11% 6.45%
% o
f St
ud
en
ts S
cre
en
ed
Screening Time Point
SRSS-E7 Results - All Students
LOW (0-3) MODERATE (4-8) HIGH (9-21)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
72.19% 77.87% 78.31%
18.30%15.57% 15.27%
9.51% 6.56% 6.42%
% o
f St
ud
en
ts S
cre
en
ed
Screening Time Point
SRSS-E7 Results - All Students
LOW (0-3) MODERATE (4-8) HIGH (9-21)
FallWinter
Spring
Fall Winter
Spring
2015 2016 2017
72.39% 74.67% 81.85%
14.69% 13.57%9.64%
12.92% 11.77% 8.51%
% o
f St
ud
en
ts S
cre
en
ed
Screening Time Point
SRSS-I5 Results - ALL Students
LOW (0-1) MODERATE (2-3) HIGH (4-15)
Essential Components of
Primary Prevention Efforts
Systematic ScreeningAcademic Behavior
Treatment Integrity
Social Validity
Social Validity: Primary Intervention Rating Scale (PIRS) Educator Survey
(Lane, Robertson, & Wehby 2002)
• The purpose of this survey was to obtain information that
will aid in determining the effectiveness and usefulness of
the Ci3T plan.
• Educators read each statement regarding the primary plan and select
the number that best describes their agreement with each statement.
– Fall data indicate teachers’ expectations and initial perceptions of
the primary plan.
– Spring data indicate the degree to which expectations were met and
perceptions at the end of a year of implementation.
– Comments are used by the Ci3T leadership team to revise specific
elements of the plan over the summer for the next school year.
Treatment Integrity (TI)
• The degree to which the plan is implemented as
designed
• Treatment integrity provides information on the
elements of the plan that are being implemented
• Treatment integrity is needed to accurately
interpret the effectiveness of the school’s Ci3T
plan