Vision 20/20: Checks and Balances The Data Driven Decision Making Process in Mathematics Annie Klian, Instructional Supervisor Michelle White, Executive Director Office of Academics and Transformation Department of Mathematics

Session Objectives Progress Monitoring: i-Ready, Topic Assessments, and Mid- Year Assessment: What is our current level of performance as a district? As a school? What guidance can we gain from our school and district data results? School-Wide Strategies: What strategies can we implement school-wide to reach our intended outcomes? Classroom Strategies: What instructional adjustments need to be made in the core classes to reach our intended outcomes?

Looking Back to Synergy Framework of Effective Instruction Framework of Effective Instruction for Math ASSESSMENT “The more reflective we are, the more effective we are.” -Pete Hall

Grade-Level Standards FSA Grade-Level Reporting Categories “Data connects me to my students and their learning, pushes me to high levels of reflection on my practice, and spurs me to engage in dialogue with colleagues, students, and parents.” –Jennifer Morrison, ASCD MAFS Grade-Level Standards Topic Assessment Algebra 1 MYA Geometry MYA Grade-Level Concepts i-Ready RtI Levels Adaptive Prerequisite Skills Grade-Level Content FSA Grade-Level Reporting Categories

Focal Points Predicted Proficiency District Report Predicted Proficiency School Report Intervention Screener Report Topic Assessment Results Algebra 1/Geometry MYA Results Essential Teacher Data Reports from G2D

Predicted Proficiency Report

*Data was extracted from i-Ready on 1/13/17 Part I

Predicted Proficiency School Report Link to Report: 2016-2017 i-Ready Predicted Proficient on FSA Report Remember- this report is not to make conclusions about instruction since it is not comparing same groups of students, but rather to see the status towards the school performance between the previous year and the current school year. *Data was extracted on 12/23/2016 Part II

Predicted Proficiency Report GROUP DISCUSSION: When reviewing your school’s Predicted Proficiency Report: How does the Predicted Proficiency for each grade level compare to last year’s FSA results? Why is the margin of error important? How does this data assist you in decision-making (i.e., decisions on interventions, reflective dialogue with teachers, etc.)? Predicted Proficiency Report

Predicted Proficiency by Class Report Part III *not in Power BI

Intervention Screener Report District-Level Data Results

School Summary Intervention Screener Report Part IV School Summary Intervention Screener Report Monitoring Student Progress

Intervention Screener Report- District Results Grades 6-8 Grades 6-8 Tier 1 Change Tier 2 Change Tier 3 Change 6% -1% -5% Part IV * Source: Power BI as of 1/13/17

Intervention Screener-District Results by Grade Tier 1 Change Tier 2 Change Tier 3 Change 6 8% -2% -5% 7 7% -1% -6% 8 4% -4% Part IV * Source: Power BI as of 1/13/17

Intervention Screener Report Accessing School-Level Data using Power BI Part IV

School Summary Intervention Screener Report Part IV School Summary Intervention Screener Report Monitoring Student Progress

6

Analyzing the Intervention Screener Report SCENARIOS: When reviewing the Intervention Screener Report, you notice the following changes in percentage points. What are your immediate thoughts to be able to make conclusions and set goals? Scenario A: For Tier 2, the percent of change is positive for grade 6. Scenario B: For Tier 1, the percent of change is negative for grade 7. Scenario C: For Tier 3, there is no change for grade 8. Analyzing the Intervention Screener Report How do these reports help monitor the effectiveness of instruction, remediation, and/or intervention?

Analyzing the Intervention Screener Report GROUP DISCUSSION: When reviewing the Intervention Screener Report for your school, what changes in percentage points do you notice? Discuss at your tables: How do you use these reports help monitor the effectiveness of instruction, remediation, and/or intervention? What does your school’s data tell you? What are your next steps? Analyzing the Intervention Screener Report How do these reports help monitor the effectiveness of instruction, remediation, and/or intervention? District Results Grade Tier 1 Change Tier 2 Change Tier 3 Change 6 8% -2% -5% 7 7% -1% -6% 8 4% -4% 6-8 6%

Additional i-Ready Data Using Power BI

Topic Assessments District-Level Data Results

Topic Assessments: District Average Percent Correct

Topic Assessments: District Average Percent Correct

Topic Assessments: District Average Percent Correct

Topic Assessments Accessing School-Level Data using Power BI

School Comparison: Topic Assessment Results

Analyzing Topic Assessment Data GROUP DISCUSSION: In Power BI, examine the Topic Assessment data for your school, selecting one grade level and course. Identify the Topic(s) that students struggled with the most as well as the strongest. Use the Content At-A-Glance documents to identify the Reporting Categories taught in those Topics. Use the Test Design Summary document to identify how this Reporting Category is weighted (% of Test). Guiding Questions: Which Topic shows the greatest need for remediation for each grade level? How are the Reporting Categories for these Topics weighted? Can your teachers identify those Topics and standards for which students are the most/least successful? How do you know? What are some steps they are currently taking to address the data? What are some next steps to consider? Analyzing Topic Assessment Data

Math Content Focus: At-A-Glance

Math Content Focus: At-A-Glance

FSA Test Design Summary

Algebra 1/Geometry Mid-Year Assessment

Topic Assessments and MYA: District Average Percent Correct

School Comparison: Middle Grades Algebra 1 MYA Results

***Data includes BOTH high school and middle grades data Algebra 1 Algebra 1 MYA Standards: 21 Total # Questions: 55 Item Type DOK 1 2 3 Multiselect 14 (25%) 10 M.C. 41 (75%) 17 22 % of items 36 58 5 Algebra 1 FSA Percentage of Computer-Based Test Composed of Technology-Enhanced Items: 40% - 60% 2016 Lowest RC: Stats/NS, then Functions & Modeling 2015 Lowest RC: Functions & Modeling DOK 1 DOK 2 DOK 3 10%-20% 60%-80% FSA Mathematics Test Design Summary 2016-17 Mid-Year Assessment Report

***Data includes BOTH high school and middle grades data Geometry Geometry MYA Standards: 15 Total # Questions: 48 Item Type DOK 1 2 3 Multiselect 5 (10%) 4 M.C. 43 (90%) 12 27 % of items 65 8 Geometry FSA Percentage of Computer-Based Test Composed of Technology-Enhanced Items: 40% - 60% 2016 Lowest RC: Geometry & Modeling then Circles, Geometric Measurement & Geometric Properties with Equations 2015 Lowest RC: Geometry & Modeling DOK 1 DOK 2 DOK 3 10%-20% 60%-80% FSA Mathematics Test Design Summary 2016-17 Mid-Year Assessment Report

2016-2017 Algebra 1/Geometry Mid-Year Assessment GROUP DISCUSSION: When reviewing your school’s Algebra 1/Geometry Mid-Year Assessment data: How does your school compare to the District results? To schools with similar demographics/Tier? What are some steps your teachers are currently taking to address the data? What are some next steps to consider? 2016-2017 Algebra 1/Geometry Mid-Year Assessment

Essential Data Reports from G2D for DI and Remediation Topic Assessments and Mid-Year Assessments

Types of Data Reports on G2D Distractor Analysis Item Analysis Standard Analysis At Risk Report

Use Drop-Down menu to select exam G2D Reports Go to Reporting Tab and select assessment and type of report to view. Expand Use Drop-Down menu to select exam and select Search Click on % to view report types

Note- If a school does not offer Intensive Math, then the core teachers can use ANY of the resources in the Ready Toolbox.

District Developed Resources Algebra 1 District Developed Resources Optional Comprehensive Assessment Window H.M.H. Resources Edgenuity Resources CPALMS Resources

Data Usage Best Practices Data Analysis – Mini PD for Teachers

Computer-Based Testing Paper-Based Computer-Based Testing Math Updates

CBT and PBT Topic Assessments Weekly Briefing # 20618 & 20621 CBT and PBT Topic Assessments In order to provide students with opportunities to practice with additional technology-enhanced item types (TEIs) in preparation for FSA, each Topic Assessment posted in Gateway to Data (G2D) will have a Computer-Based Only version and a Paper-Based version. Grades 6-8 Algebra 1 & Geometry 6th Grade Regular Topic VI Assessment 6th Grade Advanced Topic VI Assessment 7th Grade Regular Topic VII Assessment 7th Grade Advanced Topic VIII Assessment 8th Grade Regular Topics VI & VII Assessment (Combined Topic Assessment) Algebra I Topics VII & VIII Assessment (Combined Topic Assessment) Geometry Topic VII Assessment Naming Convention- Grades 6-8: “CBT: 6th Grade Regular Topic VI Assessment - Mathematics” “Paper-Based: 6th Grade Regular Topic VI Assessment - Mathematics” Naming Convention- Algebra & Geometry: “Geometry Topic 7 Test” “Geometry Topic 7 Test – Paper-Based”

CBT Comprehensive Assessment- Optional FSA Paper-Based Version will be available Administration Window: February 27th through March 3rd Scanning, Data Analysis, and Planning: March 6th through March 10th Standards Review and Remediation (bellringers, DI, etc): March 13th through April 7th FSA Window Opens: April 17th

Middle Grades Mathematics Thank You! Department of Mathematics Middle Grades Mathematics 1501 N.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 326 Miami, FL 33132 Office: 305-995-1939 Fax: 305-995-4188