Exploring Data Use & School Performance in an Urban School District Kyo Yamashiro, Joan L. Herman, & Kilchan Choi UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST) CRESST Conference UCLA September 8, 2005

Context & Background Large urban school district in the Pacific Northwest Value-added Assessment System implemented in District Need for more info on schools’ use of data (VA and other)

Data Use & Evidence-based Practice ) Data use at the heart of test-based reforms (NCLB) & continuous improvement efforts ) Little evidence of effects of data use on performance ) Some evidence shows limited access and capacity of schools to use data

Study Components CRESST conducts multi-year, multi- faceted study of data use: Transformation Plan Review - content analysis of school improvement plans Interviews, surveys, and observations from site visits of case study schools Analysis of district achievement and survey data Observations of school presentations about progress

Sampling Latent variable, multilevel analyses used to estimate gains (student-level, longitudinal ITBS data in reading & math) Gains based on growth from 3rd to 5th grade for 2 cohorts in each school: 3rd graders in rd graders in 2001 Within each cohort, 3 performance subgroups (average, low, high)

Sampling (cont’d) 13 Schools met the following criteria: Greater than district average % of low-SES students Starting point below district average “Beat the Odds” Sample (7): Higher than average gains Relatively more consistent across: 2 cohorts (98 & 01) reading and math performance subgroups (hi, avg, lo)

Sample Extremely diverse set of 13 small, elementary schools African American student populations between % Asian American student populations between % White student populations between 5- 59% Enrollment range: 134 to 533

Transformation Plan Review TP Review Rubric (Rating of 1 to 3) Types of evidence or indicators used Breadth; depth; VA data; technical sophistication Identification of goals/objectives or needs analysis Identification of solution strategies Specificity; based on theory/ research/data Analysis of progress Inclusion of stakeholders

Case Study Site Visits 2-day visits to 4 case study sites: Interviews/focus groups: Principal Building Leadership Team (BLT) Teachers (primary, upper) Teacher Survey

Additional Achievement Analyses Latent Variable Multiple Cohort (LMC) Design (with SEMs) Estimating gains on ITBS based on data across 5 cohorts (1998 to 2002) Gains for performance subgroups: Average (students starting at school mean initial status) High (students starting at 15 points above school’s average) Low (students starting at 15 points below school’s average) Patterns of growth differ from 2-cohort analysis

Results: Achievement Differences between Pre- and Post- Transformation Plan Reform High/Avg: 4 schools - consistent growth across rdg & math & subgroups Low: 6 schools - left some subgroups behind in math and/or rdg Very Low: 3 schools - no growth or negative gains

Results: Data Use Data Use Is Improving but Still Varied Over 3 years, schools increased use of assessment results and other evidence Schools increased mention of VA data Data Review Process is Inclusive When Capacity Exists Principal often conduit (filter, interpret) However, many schools developed collaborative processes for data review Transf Planning Process May become More Centralized (Less Inclusive) in Later Years

Results: Data Use (cont’d) Accessible and Excessive Data Teachers use data for schoolwide reform and (to lesser degree) instructional planning Teachers are overwhelmed with amount of data More Capacity Needed Whether schools integrate data into instructional decisions tended to be person- or climate-driven Principals need help, too More Diagnostic, Instructionally Sensitive Data Needed State testing data not seen as useful, valid, timely, or interpretable lack of continuity in tests (from grade to grade) lack of diagnostic info (item analyses) lack of individual growth info (pre-post) District assessments seen as more helpful to instruction

Results: Data Use & Achievement Pre-Post Gains & Data Use Practices

Results: Data Use & Achievement (cont’d) Ratings overlap for 7 of 13 schools For the most discrepant case (Polk): showing high gains but low data use school in chaos, with new leadership For remaining 5 moderate discrepancies, no case study data

Conclusions Less use of data for instructional planning probably a function of: type of data provided leadership & climate capacity Principals and teacher leaders need more help in interpreting and using data Data use and gains appear to have a moderate link for struggling schools; more case study info needed Need for more research on how to use value-added (gains) in an accountability setting