Understanding AYP Campus Data 12/3/2018

Goal Initiate discussions about school data Analyze AYP Results Identify strengths and weaknesses of the AYP data Identify the types of data useful for school improvement Identify the strengths of each type of data Improve teaching and student learning Emphasize that this session begins the discussion about school data. More information needs to be located after the CIP teams are assembled at each individual school. The ultimate goal of analyzing data is to improve teaching and student learning. 12/3/2018

AYP Indicators? In your table group list the indicators used to calculate AYP … Many participants have knowledge of the AYP indicators. This is an excellent time to acknowledge and modify the remainder of the session to what is learned from this discussion. 12/3/2018

AYP Guide http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/index.html 12/3/2018 Emphasize that the TEA website provided is the ultimate source for all questions about AYP. http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/index.html 12/3/2018

AYP Indicators In all student groups Reading/Language Arts Performance Mathematics Performance Graduation Rate Or Attendance Rate Reading/Language Arts Participation (95%) Mathematics Participation (95%) In all student groups It is important to remember that all student groups must meet all the AYP indicators. 12/3/2018

Other AYP Indicators In all student groups Attendance rate 90% Graduation rate 70% In all student groups It is important to remember that all student groups must meet all the AYP indicators. Attendance rate is calculated when the campus does not have a graduating senior class. 12/3/2018

Flexibility In all student groups Safe Harbor Performance improvement for each tested student group or a 10% decrease in the percentage not proficient from the previous year. AND at least 1/10% improvement in graduation rate or attendance rate In all student groups Schools are provided safe harbor when they are not meeting AYP requirements but ARE showing improvement in all student groups. 12/3/2018

Flexibility for a small campus or district Confidence Interval Available upon appeal to small campuses & districts with at least 10, but less than 50 tested students in Reading/Language Arts or Mathematics Allows AYP to be met by recalculating observed performance rate plus allowance for sampling error. Uniform Averaging Uses data aggregated over two years Pairing Campuses with less than 10 assessments, performance results at all students level will be applied to assigned paired campus Case by case evaluation for fewer than five assessments In all student groups Small districts and campuses are provided extra measures to calculate and meet AYP requirements. 12/3/2018

Performance Standard 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Reading/ELA 47% 53% 60% 67% 73% 80% 87% 93% 100% Mathematics 33% 42% 50% 58% 75% 83% 92% The performance standard in Reading/ELA and Mathematics is increasing every two years until 08-09; then it increases every year until it reaches 100% in 2014. 12/3/2018

Rising Performance Standard 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 Reading/ELA 47% 53% 60% 67% 73% 80% 87% 93% 100% Mathematics 33% 42% 50% 58% 75% 83% 92% The performance standard in Reading/ELA and Mathematics is increasing every two years until 08-09; then it increases every year until it reaches 100% in 2014. 12/3/2018

100% by 2014 100% The performance standard in Reading/ELA and Mathematics is increasing every two years until 08-09; then it increases every year until it reaches 100% in 2014. 12/3/2018

Campus rated Academically Unacceptable, Missed AYP in Reading (Performance) and Mathematics (Performance) It is helpful to use sample data before beginning individual campus data if there are several campus teams in the training session. The AYP report provides the campus rating beside the campus name. 12/3/2018

Students may be represented in more than one group It is important to note that one student may be represented in several groups. A special education, Hispanic student that is on free/reduced lunch, and in ESL, for example, will be represented in the following categories: all students, Hispanic, economically disadvantaged, special education, LEP (Measure), and LEP (Students). Students may be represented in more than one group 12/3/2018

All Students that: Met standard on 04-05 Reading/Language Arts For future reference, write 53% on your copy of the AYP Report 53% All Students that: Met standard on 04-05 Reading/Language Arts Were tested on 04-05 Reading/Language Arts % of the students that met 53% standard % of the all student group It is helpful for the participants to write the percentage of students required to pass the Reading/Language Arts performance indicator. 12/3/2018

√ 53% Special formats ‘*’, >99%, <1%, used to protect student confidentiality n/a indicates the data are not available or applicable - indicates there were no students in that group Point out that the special format symbols are noted at the bottom of the sample sheet provided. 12/3/2018

√ 53% Take Five Explain to your neighbor what we know about this Economically Disadvantaged group. Allow time for the participants to discuss what they know from examining this data. 12/3/2018

Reading/Language Arts For future reference, write 47% on your copy of the AYP Report 47% 53% The report provides information about the previous years performance which can be used in the longitudinal study. Emphasize that this is a different group of students and, thus, of limited value. Reading/Language Arts Student performance in 2003-2004 12/3/2018

53% 47% Improvement Required to meet AYP through Safe Harbor. Improvement is not calculated for the Other Indicator. The difference between the rates for the two years is used to determine if the campus met performance improvement in Reading/Language Arts The report provides information of how the passing rates have changed over the two years and shows the required improvement for meeting AYP through Safe Harbor. 12/3/2018

Reading/Language Arts Highlight or circle each student group that does not meet AYP in Reading/Language Arts Discuss with a neighbor What do we know? What do we not know? What are some questions it raises? Reflection time is critical; allow time for the participants to discuss what they know from this data and what kind of questions it raises. 12/3/2018

Examine the Mathematics Data provided. 42% 53% 33% Examine the Mathematics Data provided. Highlight or circle the student groups that did not meet AYP What questions do these data raise? Ask the participants to write in 42% for the performance standard for Mathematics in 2004-2005 and 33% for 2003-2004 as illustrated on the slide. Then provide time for the teams to highlight the student groups that did not meet AYP in the two snapshots provided and discuss what else they would like to know. An example question may be, “What is going on in special education?” The passing rate in that subpopulation is much higher than the other groups. 12/3/2018

Resource Principal’s Planning Guide: Mathematics* District Implications Strategic Steps for Math Interventions Short term Long term *Region XIII ESC. (2006). Principal’s planning guide: Mathematics. Austin, TX: Author. (http://www.esc13.net/statewide/sirc/ ) If mathematics is an area that needs a focus on their CIPs, then the Principal Planning Guides from SIRC are a good resources to review for ideas on what their individual campus should consider at the district and campus level, as well as short term and long term strategic steps. Planning guides may be purchased at: http://www.esc13.net/statewide/sirc/ 12/3/2018

42% 70% 53% 70% 33% The graduation rate is at 70%; note LEP measure in 04 is 58.8, down 1.9% Other Measure: Only one other measure is used in the AYP calculation for each district and campus—Attendance Rate OR Graduation Rate. 12/3/2018

95% 95% Participation rate = the percentage of enrolled students summed across several grades (3-8 & 10) taking the assessment. Participation results are summed across Grades 3-8 and 10 for the grades tested at the campus or district. 12/3/2018

“-” Met AYP on this measure 95% 95% 70%90% “-” Met AYP on this measure % Missed AYP for performance due to NCLB 5% cap on SDAA II and LDAA “X” Missed AYP for this measure Point out the key for x, -, and % is noted at the bottom of the sample form. For more information refer to the AYP guide referenced on slide 4 at http://www.tea.state.tx.us/ayp/index.html 12/3/2018

In the next 5 minutes, discuss with a partner… What are some of the questions that can be addressed at this time? What correlations can you make at this time? What else would you like to know? Provide time for the groups to discuss the data. Ask table groups to report one question the data raised and one correlation they can make at this time. Share your ideas with your table group. 12/3/2018

Now it is your turn… The Table Facilitator will provide you with your campus data. Work with your school team to examine your school data and complete the data organizer provided. Note what we know from the data provided. Document questions that need to be investigated later. Provide campus teams with data in the same format that was used in this presentation. It can be obtained from the TEA website. Use the Data Organizer to highlight key data that needs to be examined now and when the entire CIP teams are assembled. Emphasize that this work should be done with a CIP team as required by TAC code. 12/3/2018

Student Learning* Annual-large scale (TAKS) Periodic Ongoing Designed for accountability purposes Samples student knowledge in broad domains Used to evaluate the effectiveness of curriculum Periodic Ongoing * Learning Point Associates. (2004). Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts. Naperville, IL: Author Discuss the merits of TAKS data and some of the drawbacks. TAKS data can be used to identify what needs more investigation. It is the beginning of the process. 12/3/2018

Student Learning* Annual-large scale Periodic (often called Benchmarks) Purchased or locally developed Immediate student results Ongoing * Learning Point Associates. (2004). Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts. Naperville, IL: Author. Periodic data is useful if the assessments are well aligned to TAKS system results are provided to the teams in a timely fashion results are used to guide instruction 12/3/2018

Student Learning* Annual-large scale Periodic Formative and Ongoing Guides daily instructional decisions Identifies excelling and struggling students Identifies successful instructional strategies * Learning Point Associates. (2004). Guide to Using Data in School Improvement Efforts. Naperville, IL: Author. Formative assessment is often not used effectively; it can be very powerful if consciously used to guide ‘daily’ instruction. This is an opportunity for campus teams to share successes as well as challenges. 12/3/2018

Where is your team going from here? What are your next steps? How are you going to use data? What will you use to inform your action steps for school improvement? Possible Resources include the Principal Planning Guides: Skill Check and Benchmarking Processes TEKS Based Instruction at TAKS Standards Challenge the teams to develop a plan to use all types of data to inform the development of their CIP. Other resources from SIRC are available and should be utilized by the teams to select & prioritize their actions steps. 12/3/2018