Instructional Leaders, Data and Student Achievement: Multiple measures, multiple lenses Linda Caine-Smith, Marie Maci, Mark Weinberg and Kim WellsOctober 5, 2010

THE MULTIPLE LENSES Looking at student achievement through multiple lenses. Federal and State Accountability – Kim Wells The Charter Contract – Mark Weinberg School and Grade Level Data – Linda Caine- Smith Classroom and Student Level Data – Marie Maci This afternoon Laura Stabler will present how self-reflective leaders use data, among other things, to increase student achievement.

THE FOCUSED LENS The report noted one characteristic shared by all [of the successful schools studied]: “Achievement rose when leadership teams focused thoughtfully and relentlessly on improving the quality of instruction.” New York Times, Sept. 27, 2010 We will look at a lot of data today however, the end in mind is increased student achievement through continuous school improvement – that happens in the classroom.

THE INSTRUCTIONAL CORE The only three ways to improve performance in schools. increase the knowledge and skill of teachers change the content alter the relationship of the student to the teacher and the content Richard Elmore (2009) All of the above are facilitated by the effective use of data …

DATA, DATA, DATA Two key assumptions: Data INFORMS your decisions, it does not drive them, or make them for you. When informing your decisions, more data from multiple sources is always better than less so, today we will look at student achievement though multiple lenses.

BUT FIRST, A FEW WORDS FROM WASHINGTON… Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education:

STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY KIMBERLY WELLS, THE CENTER FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS

NCLB: Adequate Yearly Progress School Accreditation MDE’s Top-to-Bottom List

STATE AND FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS Accountability System All Subjects Included MEAP/MME Proficiency MEAP Growth MEAP/MME Change Adequate Yearly Progress Reading & Math Only √√ Education YES! √√√ MI-SAAS √√√√ MDE’s Top to Bottom List Reading & Math Only √√

NCLB: ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act requires the state to annually determine whether a school has made adequate yearly progress (AYP). –MEAP/MME –Reading and Math Proficiency (credit for growth and provisionally proficient) –95% Participation –Attendance (90%) or graduation rate (80%) –Subgroups

NCLB: ADEQUATE YEARLY PROGRESS What valuable information can AYP data tell me about my school?  How are students in various subgroups performing?  How many students are provisionally proficient and how many students are on the path to proficiency in reading and math?

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION

The No Child Left Behind Act Michigan Law: MCL –Three Levels: Summary, Interim, and Unaccredited Education YES! is MI’s current system of school accreditation Education YES! Letter GradeAccreditation Status ASummary Accredited BInterim Accredited C D-AlertInterim Accredited FUnaccredited

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION What can Education YES! data tell me about my school?  How high or low is MEAP/MME proficiency in individual subjects?  From year-to-year is proficiency on the MEAP/MME increasing, staying the same, or decreasing?

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION Education YES! MEAP and MME Elementary: Reading and math Secondary: Reading, math, science and social studies Proficiency and change

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION MI-SAAS Originally approved by the SBOE in May of 2009 Implementation (?) MEAP/MME: Reading, writing, math, science and social studies Measures growth as well as proficiency in 3-8 math and reading. Measures year-to-year change in writing, science, and social studies. Provisionally proficient scores included for high school. Accreditation labels instead of letter grades  Accredited  Interim accredited  Unaccredited

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION MI-SAAS : Additional Indicators 100% certified teachers. Published School Improvement Plan. Required curricula offered. Grade level content expectations and Michigan merit curriculum. Annual self-assessment submitted. Literacy and math tested annually in grades 1-5. Participated in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) if selected. Six-year high school graduation rate above 80%. 95% of students tested.

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION Accredited: No more than one subject below 60% proficient. No subjects below 35% proficient. School’s statewide percentile ranking is not in the lowest 20%. Interim Accredited: No more than two subjects below 60% proficient. No subjects below 35% proficient. School’s statewide percentile ranking is not in the lowest 5%.

SCHOOL ACCREDITATION Unaccredited One or more subjects lower than 35% proficient or School is on the MDE’s “persistently low achieving (PLA) schools list,” or School is not on the MDE’s PLA but statewide percentile ranking is in the lowest 5%. For more information : _ ,00.html _ ,00.html

MDE’S TOP-TO-BOTTOM LIST

MDE’S TOP-TO-BOTTOM LIST OF SCHOOLS List published August 16 th to comply with MI’s new Education Reform Laws Each public school in the state has been given a percentile ranking  Highest performing = 100  Lowest performing = 0 MEAP/MME Proficiency Reading and Math (2/3) MEAP Growth or MME Improvement Slope (1/3)

MDE’S TOP-TO-BOTTOM LIST OF SCHOOLS What can the MDE’s Top-To-Bottom List of Schools by Percentile Rank tell me about my school?  How well is our school doing in getting students proficient in math and reading compared to other schools in the state?  Compared to other charter schools in the state?  Compared to schools serving similar populations?

PERSISTENTLY LOW-ACHIEVING SCHOOLS Tier I 8 Schools Tier II 84 Schools Persistently Low-Achieving Schools 92 Schools (6 Are Charter Public Schools. None are CMU Schools )

WHY FEDERAL & STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ARE NOT ENOUGH

WHY STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ARE NOT ENOUGH Proficiency on Michigan standards does not necessarily mean students are prepared for success in college, work, and life. Research has shown that the Michigan MEAP proficiency bar is set at a very low level which creates an “illusion of proficiency.”  According to The Accountability Illusion by the Fordham Foundation… “Michigan’s proficiency standards (or cut scores) are relatively easy compared to other states in the study (none are above the 35th percentile according to NWEA norms).”

WHY STATE & FEDERAL ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS ARE NOT ENOUGH National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Results Versus Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Results (2009) Grade/SubjectMEAP % ProficientNAEP % ProficientDifference in Proficiency 4 th Grade Math92%35%-57 8 th Grade Math70%31%-39 4 th Grade Reading84%30%-54 8 th Grade Reading83%31%-52 Source: NAEP Website MDE Website

While MEAP is an important indicator in helping determine if students have mastered certain basic skills national standardized tests such as Scantron’s Performance Series, NWEA’s MAP, and ACT Inc.’s EXPLORE, PLAN, and ACT, are also important indicators in determining whether students are on track to being academically prepared for college, work, and life.

THE SECOND LENS - THE CHARTER CONTRACT The Evolution of Educational Goals The 1990’s – You wouldn’t believe it! Common Goals – Make AYP, Education YES!, Growth Common and Mission Specific Goals Common Goals aligned to a national initiative THE EDUCATIONAL GOAL (‘My Goal’) and related measures

THE SECOND LENS - THE CHARTER CONTRACT The 1990s – CMU’s Oversight and Compliance Responsibility “Request periodic reports from the Academy regarding any aspect of its operation, including, without limitation, the Academy's performance in meeting its targeted educational goals.” and … “Determine whether the Academy has failed to abide by or meet the educational goals as set forth in the Contract.”

Educational Goals – The 90s Seriously? Goal #7 Each student will collect, in his/her Learning Portfolio every year, at least 5 authentic outcome-based projects, crossing 4 subject areas of language arts, math, science, and social studies as evidence of his/her ongoing progress. The achievement level of the projects will be measured by the degree to which they match or exceed age-appropriate criterion, referenced by the Developmental Checklists in Work Sampling Systems. Each student will demonstrate at least one year's criterion referenced development in every year. Goal #15 The Board will support and document educational innovation that creates a model learning environment for educational success. To do this it will engage every level of the school in an internal review process to be completed by April each year and actively pursue research grants to determine if it is and how it is most effective in providing exemplary educational practice for highest educational results. It will have written and received a research grant by June of 2000.

EDUCATIONAL GOALS The Common Goals Era 1. Federal Goal = Make AYP 2. State Goal = Get at least a ‘B’ on Ed YES 3. University Board Goal – Growth “One year of learning for one year of instruction” – Mission Specific Goals

2009 -THE COMMON GOALS ALIGNED TO A NATIONAL INITIATIVE A Framework for Academic Quality A Report from the National Consensus Panel on Charter School Academic Quality Common language and common indicators – achievement, growth, post-secondary readiness

MY GOAL Prepare students academically for success in college, work and life.

MY GOAL – THE DETAILS

MY GOAL - ACHIEVEMENT ACTIVITY Page 15

MY GOAL - ACHIEVEMENT ACTIVITY At your tables take the information on page 15, combine it with the MDE’s Top- to-Bottom list, and any other information in the report, and try to tell the achievement story of this school. -Report Out

QUESTIONS “Achievement rose when leadership teams focused thoughtfully and relentlessly on improving the quality of instruction.”

CONCLUSION? Marshmallow Test Marzano IMAX 3D – DEAP SEA