CMSD Fall Data Check In November 3, 2017

Session Objectives Provide information regarding district and school report card results. Comparison between 2017 SY Spring Ohio State Test results, 2018 SY Fall NWEA MAP results, and school goals for 2018 SY. Increase understanding of how NWEA relates to Ohio State Test performance levels and report card metrics. Discuss best practices around cascading school level goals to individual student targets. Demo tools built to help buildings understand their data and set student level targets. Review expectations for the upcoming November AAP meeting.

District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA District Reading Proficiency (Grades 3-10) GOAL: Increase from 29.2% to 36.9% (7.7% point increase) FALL NWEA 22% Proficient (14.9% gap between current and goal)

District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA District Math Proficiency (Grades 3-10) GOAL: Increase from 26.6% to 33.5% (6.9% point increase) FALL NWEA 20% Proficient (13.5% gap between current and goal)

District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA District Performance Index GOAL: Increase from 59.1 (49.2%) to 65.3 (54%) (6.2 point increase) FALL NWEA 52 (43%) (13.3 point gap between current and goal)

District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA District Value Add Reading (Grades 4-10) FALL NWEA -8.93 (F Grade) 19% of students improved by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA 56% of students stayed at the same performance level from Spring OST to Fall NWEA 29% of students declined by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA

District 2018 SY Report Card Predictions Based on Fall NWEA District Value Add Math (Grades 4-10) FALL NWEA -5.42 (F Grade) 11% of students improved by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA 65% of students stayed at the same performance level from Spring OST to Fall NWEA 24% of students declined by 1 or more performance levels from Spring OST to Fall NWEA

School Level Performance After the webinar, we will be sharing with all schools a sheet showing: Performance on the major academic metrics from the report card Proficiency in Reading and Math Value Added in Reading and Math Performance Index Scores End of 2017 SY Data Predicted 2018 SY Results (based on Fall NWEA) 2018 SY Targets

Student Movement between performance levels We are seeing significant backwards movement from Spring OST to the Fall NWEA. Potential explanations: Summer slide SLOs Have been seeing spring to spring patterns of backwards movement that have significant consequences for district performance.

NWEA Quintile Report NWEA report that divides students into groups based on the percentile a student scored in. Percentile rankings are based on a national sample of NWEA test takers.

NWEA Quintile Report Quintile reports give an indication of: Students that are at similar performance levels as teachers consider grouping or intervention strategies. Whether students are growing from one administration of the test to the next. Movement in quintiles does not necessarily indicate movement on OST though.

NWEA Quintiles vs. OST Proficiency Low (1 – 20th %) Low Mid (21 – 40th %) Mid (41 – 60th %) Mid High (61 – 80th %) High (81 – 99th %) Limited / Below Basic Basic Proficient Accelerated Advanced

NWEA Quintiles vs. OST Proficiency Low (1 – 20th %) Low Mid (21 – 40th %) Mid (41 – 60th %) Mid High (61 – 80th %) High (81 – 99th %) Reading Limited / Below Basic Basic Proficient Accelerated Advanced (0 – 29th%) (30 – 54th%) (54 – 73th%) (74 – 84th%) (85 – 99th%) Mathematics Limited / Below Basic Basic Proficient Accelerated Advanced (0 – 36th%) (37 – 47th%) (48 – 65th%) (66 – 80th%) (80 – 99th%)

NWEA Expected Growth All growth measures are rooted in some “expectation” of how much students should move. This expectation can vary, based on the growth measure used.

NWEA Expected Growth ODE growth measure bases expectations on whether a student maintained their position relative to every other student in the state of Ohio.

Value Add Average Spring 2016 Score for a school

Value Add Average Spring 2017 Score for a school

Value Add Average Spring 2017 Score for a school

Value Add Average Spring 2017 Score for a school

NWEA Expected Growth NWEA expected growth is based on the average growth other students in the same grade and same baseline performance have historically shown. A 6th grade student scoring a 208 (12th percentile) on NWEA MAP Math has: A Spring to Spring expectation of 5 points of growth. A Fall to Spring expectation of 4 points of growth.

NWEA Expected Growth The student could meet the NWEA growth expectation (208 to 213) and still not move in terms of predicted OST performance levels. 100-218 is Limited on NWEA Math for 6th grade Students significantly below proficient could meet NWEA growth expectations and actually get further and further away from proficiency.

NWEA Expected Growth Shift in thinking is required so that student targets are in terms of OST. Need to think of how many students can move performance levels.

OST Performance Level Movement

Moving One or More Perf. Levels How does last year’s movement compare historically? The percentage of students in 2017 increasing one or more performance level was higher than any year since 2011 for Reading The percentage of students in 2017 decreasing one or more performance level was lower than any year since 2011 in both Math and Reading However, the percentage of students not moving at all was substantially higher than any years since 2011 in both Math and Reading

Moving Perf. Levels & Value Added How does a school’s ability to move student’s OST performance levels from 2016 to 2017 interact with a schools’ 2017 Value Added rating? To begin: Calculated the percentage of students in both Reading and Math at each school that: Increased their performance level by one or more (Increased Group) Decreased their performance level by one or more (Decreased Group) Did not increase nor decrease their performance level (No Movement Group) Then subtracted the Increased from the Decreased Group to arrive at a Net Positive Movement Group

Overall Value Added & Perf. Levels “C” Rating

Math Value Added & Perf. Levels To obtain a Math Value Added Score of a “C”, it appears ~10% of its students need to be in the Net Positive Performance Level Group “C” Rating

Math Value Added & Perf. Levels Net Movement Up -30% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Predicted Value Add Score -8.6 -7.7 -6.7 -5.8 -4.9 -3.9 -3.0 -2.1 -1.1 -0.2 0.7 1.7 2.6 Predicted Value Add Grade F D C B A

Reading Value Added & Perf. Levels To obtain a Reading Value Added Score of a “C”, it appears ~30% of its students need to be in the Net Positive Performance Level Group “C” Rating

Reading Value Added & Perf. Levels Net Movement Up -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55% Predicted Value Add Score -8.8 -7.8 -6.8 -5.8 -4.7 -3.7 -2.7 -1.7 -0.7 0.3 1.3 2.3 3.3 Predicted Value Add Grade F D C B A

Cascading School Goals to Students Getting specific Be intentional Provide support for all students

Cascading School Goals to Students If school’s goal is to increase proficiency in reading from 26% to 36%, how many students must be proficient at end of the year? Where are students at right now? What performance level targets do we have for each student?

Cascading School Goals to Students We have put together a worksheet to help your building leadership teams do this work.

Cascading School Goals to Students Building principal took this work to their teachers to then drive these goals down to a student level. Provides principals and teachers clarity with what is expected.