online data workshop

Online Data Workshop

2009-2010 SIPOffice of Curriculum and Instruction

Office of School Improvement

Important Links• School Data Report and Content Focus

http://ossip.dadeschools.net/

• FCAT Results Combined Gradeshttp://oada.dadeschools.net/FCAT/FCAT.asp

• FCAT Results by sub-groups including content cluster results by sub-groupshttps://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/

• Benchmark Analysis of District Interim Assessmentshttp://curriculum.dadeschools.net/

• FCAT Resources: http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp


http://oada.dadeschools.net/FCAT/FCAT.asp

https://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/

http://curriculum.dadeschools.net/

http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp

School Improvement Plan & Accountability

SchoolImprovement

Plan

2005-2009 FCAT, School Grade, and AYP• Performance• Content Cluster

Analysis

2008-09 A Year at a Glance• FCAT• Baseline

Assessment• District Interim

Assessments

2005-2009 AYP• Total• Subgroups

http://ossip.dadeschools.net


2005-2009 FCAT, School Grade, and AYPFCAT Mathematics - Grade 3

Year Total

Students Tested

% Levels 3-5

Number Sense Measurement Geometry Algebraic Thinking Data Analysis

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

2009 109 61 12 50% 8 50% 7 57% 6 50% 7 71%

2008 99 53 12 58% 8 50% 7 71% 6 50% 7 57%

2007 119 54 12 50% 8 50% 7 57% 6 50% 7 57%

2006 158 46 12 50% 8 50% 7 43% 6 50% 7 43%

2005 140 46 12 42% 8 63% 7 57% 6 50% 7 57%

FCAT Mathematics - Grade 4

Year Total

Students Tested

% Levels 3-5


Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

2009 92 58 11 55% 8 63% 7 71% 7 57% 7 57%

2008 101 56 11 55% 8 50% 7 57% 7 57% 7 71%

2007 109 39 11 45% 8 50% 7 57% 7 43% 7 43%

2006 99 43 10 60% 8 50% 7 43% 7 43% 7 57%

2005 85 51 11 55% 8 50% 7 57% 7 57% 7 43%

FCAT Mathematics - Grade 5

Year Total

Students Tested

% Levels 3-5


Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

2009 109 36 13 46% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%

2008 108 25 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 36% 12 42%

2007 95 25 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%

2006 90 24 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%

2005 105 40 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%

2005-2009 FCAT Content Cluster Analysis 2005-2009 FCAT Content Cluster Analysis

Mathematics - Grade 5

Year Total

Students Tested

% Levels 3-5


Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

Possible Points

Avg. % Correct

2009 109 36 13 46% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%2008 83 51 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 36% 12 42%2007 78 55 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%2006 63 46 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%2005 70 64 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%

FCAT, %Levels 3-5

Average % Correct

Year

Schoolwide Status TOTAL AYP Criteria Note:

SCHOOL GRADE AYP STATUS % AYP MET

95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency

Met?3Math Proficiency

Met?4

Total Writing Met?2

Graduation Met?5

1. At least 95% tested in reading/math.2. At least 1% improvement in writing or has a writing rate of 90% or better.

%Tested Made AYP?

%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? Year

Prof. TG Reading

Prof. TGMath

3-4. Met proficiency target (see table), Safe Harbor or Growth Model.

5. At least 1% improvement in graduation rate or has a graduation rate of 85% or better.6. School grade not D or F.

2008-09 2008-09 65% 68%

2007-08 A YES 100% 99 YES 99 YES 349 53 YES 350 62 YES YES NA 2007-08 58% 62%

2006-07 D NO 82% 99 YES 99 YES 428 45 NO 427 43 NO YES NA 2006-07 51% 56%

2005-06 C NO 92% 99 YES 100 YES 425 51 YES 429 44 NO YES NA 2005-06 44% 50%

2004-05 C YES 100% Combined: 100%-YES 439 54 YES 439 46 YES YES NA 2004-05 37% 44%

BLACK HISPANIC

Year



Met?4

Year



Met?4

%Tested Made AYP?

%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?

%Tested Made AYP?


2008-09 2008-09

2007-08 99 YES 99 YES 319 53 YES 320 62 YES 2007-08 NA NA 26 NA 26 NA

2006-07 99 YES 99 YES 389 44 NO 387 43 NO 2006-07 100 YES 100 YES 30 NA 31 NA

2005-06 99 YES 100 YES 387 50 YES 391 44 NO 2005-06 100 YES 100 YES 28 NA 28 NA

2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES 400 53 YES 400 44 YES 2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES ** NA ** NA

WHITE ASIAN

Year95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1

Reading ProficiencyMet?3

Math Proficiency Met?4

Year95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1

Reading ProficiencyMet?3

Math Proficiency Met?4

%Tested

Made AYP? %Tested

Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? %Tested

Made AYP? %Tested

Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?

2008-09 2008-09

2007-08 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 2007-08 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA



2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA 2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA

AMERICAN INDIAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS

Year



Met?4

Year



Met?4

%Tested Made AYP?


%Tested Made AYP?


2008-09 2008-09




2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA 2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA

ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

Year



Met?4

Year



Met?4

%Tested Made AYP?


%Tested Made AYP?


2008-09 2008-09

2007-08 99 YES 99 YES 311 52 YES 312 63 YES 2007-08 NA NA 22 NA 22 NA

2006-07 99 YES 99 YES 386 43 NO 385 42 NO 2006-07 99 YES 100 YES 32 NA 35 NA

2005-06 99 YES 100 YES 375 50 YES 379 44 NO 2005-06 100 YES 100 YES 39 NA 39 NA

2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES 402 52 YES 402 45 YES 2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES 33 NA 33 NA

2005-2009 AYP2005-2009 AYP

Total

Black Hispanic

White Asian

American Indian ELL

Eco. Disadv. SWDhttp://ossip.dadeschools.net/


2008-09 One Year at a Glance

Performance and Content Cluster Analysis by Grade

FCAT

Mar. 2008 Sept. 2008

BaselineAssessment

Oct. 2008 Jan. 2009

District InterimAssessment

Mar. 2009

FCAT



2008-09 One Year at a Glance2008-09 One Year at a Glance

Reading, Grade 3

School Grade AYP

Reading, Grade 4

Reading, Grade 5

Science, Grade 5

Math, Grade 3

Math, Grade 4

Math, Grade 5



Dig Deeper into Data

Strand/Cluster Analysis

Content Focus by Benchmark

Benchmark Analysis(Using Edusoft on District

Interim Assessment)

Item Analysis(Using Edusoft on District

Interim Assessment)

SSS Math Benchmarks and Content Focus

2008 2009

http

://o

ssip

.dad

esch

ools

.net

/


Benchmark Analysis Reports

• Benchmark Analysis of the District Interim Assessmentshttp://curriculum.dadeschools.net/

http://curriculum.dadeschools.net/

FCAT Mathematics

Content Focus

Assessment Results



Do you know what your students should know and be able to do each year in math/reading/science?

Can you identify the gap between where students are right now in relation to high standards?

What instructional strategies can you use to accelerate students to attain high standards?

Essential Questions

How prepared are you to effectively use assessment to determine ways to alter instruction

to meet high standards?

Do you have effective classroom-level assessments to help you clearly determine

whether students are meeting high standards?

Essential Questions

Questions

Do you know why you are getting the results you get?

Do you know why you are NOT getting the results you want?

Questions

What would your school be like if your school was achieving its goals and expectations for student learning?

Building the Bridge Between Data and Results

Instructional Improvement

Frequent Data Use

Structured Collaboration

Leadership & Capacity

School Culture/Equity

online data workshop

Documents

correctpossible pointsavg

fcat levels

number of students

fcat results

year total students

years of school grade

math grade

content cluster results