+ Equity Audit & Root Cause Analysis University of Mount Union

+ Data Set Description Data Set 103 students Categories: Gender, Economically Disadvantaged, IEP/Gifted Status Class of 2018, 3 year data Reading OAA, Grade 7 Reading OAA, Grade 8 SRI, Grade 9

+ Subgroups Economically Disadvantaged 23% IEP 6% Gifted 13% Male 44% Female 56%

+ Subgroup Analysis Observations 18.8% of students performance levels dropped at least one level from OAA grade 7 to grade 8, 19.8% of students performance levels increased at least one level from grade OAA grade 7 to grade 8, and 61.4% of student performance levels did not change 17.7% of students in grade 7 scored below proficient, 51% proficient 11.7% of students in grade 8 scored below proficient, 58.3% proficient 35% of students in grade 9 scored below proficient, 41.7% proficient Males scored higher than females on all three assessments Females SRI scores average 111 points lower than males

+ Subgroup Analysis Observations Gifted students averaged above proficient on all assessments, however there are several students not labeled as gifted that performed at high achieving levels (#34, 44, 59, 80, 81) so the data correlation between gifted and non gifted labels doesn’t seem to be strong IEP students averaged below proficient on all assessments, however there are some students that don’t have IEPs that performed at low achieving levels (#8, 17, 86) that indicated these students need intervention Gifted students average higher on SRI than the OAAs and IEP students average lower on SRI than the OAAs Economically disadvantaged students average higher on OAAs than the average student population

+ Subgroup Analysis Plausible Explanations Student Growth: From grade 7 to grade 8, the percentage of students below proficient dropped and number of proficient increased. I would say that students are more comfortable with this style of testing after having the experience of it in grade 7, thus making them have less test anxiety in grade 8. Information from other districts would help to make a comparison to see what average growth is between grades. Males v. Females: I honestly have no plausible explanation for why females are lower in all assessments because this data goes against the norm that females usually achieve at a higher level, especially in the junior high time frame when females mature earlier than males. The only thing I can think that would impact reading scores would be females not responding positively to certain types of texts that males would respond to in a more positive way. A comparison of other districts data of this information would be necessary to see how other females did on these tests to more accurately narrow down an explanation. Gifted Subgroup: A wide range of scores in gifted students and some students excelling but not being labeled gifted could be attributed to inaccurate gifted identification assessments or a need for the assessments to happen more than once.

+ Subgroup Analysis Plausible Explanations IEP Subgroup: IEP students average below proficient on all assessments so it may be necessary to look into their individual plans and intervention specialists to determine whether they are receiving the help they need to become proficient. It would also be beneficial for several students that performed at low levels and not on IEPs to potentially get an RTI to make sure they are getting the proper support they need. OAA v. SRI: Gifted students averaged in a higher level on SRI than on tests, and IEP students averaged in a lower level on SRI than on tests. This could be because gifted students excel in reading, which is a direct correlation to their higher test scores and IEP students struggle in reading, which is a direct correlation to their lower test scores. Economically Disadvantaged: Nothing needs to be explained for the economically disadvantaged because they go against the norm and maintain a slightly higher average than the student population average. The district prides itself in being able to provide all students with technology (Ipads for all elementary students, Chromebooks for all 7-12 students) and that may increase equity for students that wouldn’t have access to it if it weren’t provided by the district.

+ Interview Questions Which subgroup (economically disadvantaged, gifted, IEP) do you think receives the most attention? Least? Which subgroup (economically disadvantaged, gifted, IEP) do you think needs the most support? Why? What do you think accounts for females achieving at a lower level on all assessments? What are the school’s strengths and weaknesses in regards to equity? What are suggestions for making our school more equitable?

+ Interview #1 Insights Of subgroups, IEP receive most attention & economically disadvantaged least attention Potential “burn out” on reading in junior/senior high Improved scheduling has helped intervention teachers get access to IEP students, however lack of intervention teachers leaves all students and teachers spread thin Need for more intervention teachers and improved working relationships between general education and special education teachers

+ Interview #2 Insights Of subgroups, IEP receive most attention & economically disadvantaged least attention Lack of motivation/female role models potential problem for females Staff from the area and living in the community is biggest strength Continued professional development will lead to more improvements among staff and thus the students

+ Survey Results Results can be found at the following link: w7XAkOlZVZgSQ7zB-mcqfPnTR7G65wORs/viewanalytics

+ Survey Analysis Out of approximately 85 surveys sent out, I received 29 responses = 34% respondent rate The highest percentage of disagreement (41% disagree, 3% strongly disagree) was with the statement, “General education and special education teachers are viewed as equal partners in the instructional process.” This implies that some perceive special education teachers to not be as involved with the instructional process. Two other questions on the survey: “General education and special education teachers have the opportunity to deliver instruction” and “General education and special education teachers work collaboratively in assessing and evaluating students” had a disagreement of 31% showing some of the potential reasons why respondents don’t view general and special education teachers as equal partners in the instructional process. The highest percentage of agreement (100%) was with the statement, “Teachers promote equal opportunities for all students to learn.” This implies that respondents believe teachers are giving opportunities to all students, whether in a subgroup, minority, or majority. When analyzing comments on the survey it is evident that though respondents believe teachers are promoting equal opportunities it doesn’t mean all believe that is being achieved. Examples include: “Special education students need more individualized instruction outside of the regular classroom” and “…more work is needed to challenge our high achieving students.”

+ Plan of Action District administrative leaders must see the importance of data and its value if professional development is used effectively to analyze it Use professional development to break into content areas to create data charts (similar to the one created for this assignment.) These charts would then be added onto after the next year’s assessments results are distributed to show trends over time. Social studies would create charts for social studies tests, math would create charts for math tests, etc. Intervention and elective teachers would be divided amongst the tested subjects groups After the charts are created they are to be analyzed for strengths and weaknesses while still within content areas

+ Plan of Action After data has been analyzed collaboration among content areas and with intervention specialists should occur (We are short staffed, so we need to be as efficient as possible and collaborate to help each other out as much as possible) To continue improvement the building leadership team and district leadership team (which has parents included) should create meaningful objectives to fix weaknesses found from the analyzed data. They should also praise strengths and draw from them to help weaker areas These finalized charts should be accessible to teachers so they can use it to differentiate instruction within individual classes Finally, a student survey should be given to determine student affect. This could potentially show if strengths and weaknesses in specific areas are related to student interest or lack of interest in a specific content area