PD 360 Impact Assessment: Impact of PD 360 on Student Proficiency Rates Prepared by Steven H. Shaha, PhD, DBA Summer 2009 1.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Volume 5, Issue 5 December 20, 2013 NEWSLETTER: January 2014 Graymont Grade School Newsletter Common Core State Standards (The following was taken from.

Advertisements

Executive Summary  Did not meet API/AYP goals in language arts for the school or significant subgroups.  Did not meet API/AYP goals in math for the school.

Implementing Virginia’s Growth Measure: A Practical Perspective Deborah L. Jonas, Ph.D. Executive Director, Research and Strategic Planning Virginia Department.

Why move to Common Core?  Preparation: The standards are college- and career-ready. They will help prepare students with the knowledge and skills they.

PD-360 Impact for Title 1 Schools Steven H. Shaha, PhD, DBA July 2011.

© 2011 School Improvement Network 2008 Learning Framework Impact Assessment: St. John the Baptist Parish Public Schools versus Louisiana as a State Prepared.

1 MEAP Assessment Matrix and Design Principles for PROMISE on 8/12/04 Presented by Michael Radke Ph.D. Supervisor, Michigan Educational Assessment Program.

©2001 CBMS Math Preparation of Teachers Teachers need to study the mathematics of a cluster of grade levels, both to be ready for the various ways in which.

The Community Schools Evaluation Toolkit: Moving the Research Agenda Forward Reuben Jacobson, University of Maryland Shital C. Shah, Coalition for Community.

Free Curriculum Management & Assessment System! The Villages Charter School has developed an online curriculum management and assessment system specifically.

A) The sample size. B) The level of significance.

Key SINet Impacts: Immediate Impacts Predictors of Success 2-Year Sustained Impacts 7-Year Longevity Prepared by: Steven H. Shaha, PhD, DBA 1.

Student Engagement Survey Results and Analysis June 2011.

Results H1 was supported. Paired samples t-tests revealed statistically significant (p

Evaluating the Vermont Mathematics Initiative (VMI) in a Value Added Context H. ‘Bud’ Meyers, Ph.D. College of Education and Social Services University.

DATA PRESENTATION February 5, 2008 ARE WE IMPROVING? WAS 2007 BETTER THAN 2006?

Making Sense of Math Learning Progressions District Learning Day Friday, September 18, 2015.

Grass Lake High School Reading.  All Students must be proficient in reading by 2014.

Impacts of Comprehensive Teacher Induction: Final Results from a Randomized Trial IES Summer Research Conference, June 2010 Steven Glazerman ● Eric Isenberg.

DeAnn Huinker, UW-Milwaukee MMP Principal Investigator 26 August 2008 This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under.

Mathematics and Science Education U.S. Department of Education.

The SIOP ® Model STRATEGIES. Content Objectives We will: Select learning strategies appropriate to a lesson’s objectives Incorporate explicit instruction.

The SIOP ® Model STRATEGIES. Content Objectives We will: Select learning strategies appropriate to a lesson’s objectives. Incorporate explicit instruction.

U.S. Department of Education Mathematics and Science Partnerships: FY 2005 Summary.

End of Year Report_ DataSet 1 Lodi Unified School District Year-End Benchmark Assessment Results (Student Achievement Monitoring)

January 10, 2015 Serra High School Media Center LCAP Planning Team 1.

Identifying Objectives. Objectives NEED to be directed toward student growth, achievement and success… IT IS ALL ABOUT OUR STUDENTS.

Arkansas Leadership Academy Offices Purpose of School Support The Arkansas Leadership Academy School Support Program, in collaboration with the Arkansas.

Mathematics and Science Partnerships: Summary of the Performance Period 2008 Annual Reports U.S. Department of Education.

Chapter 9 Tests of Hypothesis Single Sample Tests The Beginnings – concepts and techniques Chapter 9A.

Statistical Significance The power of ALPHA. “ Significant ” in the statistical sense does not mean “ important. ” It means simply “ not likely to happen.

Data Analysis Superintendents Trust. Increase test scores and graduation rates through targeted efforts and investments that lead to student success Proactively.

1 New Hampshire – Addenda Ppt Slides State Level Results (slides 2-7) 2Enrollment - Grades 3-8 for 2005 and Reading NECAP 4Mathematics

Making sense of data We got to deal with some Math here folks.

Connecticut’s Performance on Title III Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives, Presentation to Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English.

School Improvement Network Impact Assessment: Higher Engagement Schools versus Lower Engagement Schools Steven H. Shaha, PhD, DBA Professor, Center for.

User vs Nonuser : A Multi-State, Multi-District Study of the Impact of Participation in PD 360 on Student Performance Prepared by Steven H. Shaha, PhD,

November 16th, 2015 Arrwa Mogalli Howe Elementary Strategy Groups.

1 Monroe County School District Spending vs. Student Achievement John R. Dick School Board District 4.

Evaluation Requirements for MSP and Characteristics of Designs to Estimate Impacts with Confidence Ellen Bobronnikov February 16, 2011.

ACT ASPIRE GROWTH REPORTS. DISTRICTS AND SCHOOLS THAT PARTICIPATED IN ACT ASPIRE ASSESSMENTS (READING, MATH, ENGLISH, SCIENCE AND WRITING) WITH AN N COUNT.

Understanding AzMERIT Results and Score Reporting An Overview.

Program Evaluation and Impact Assessment: Internet-Delivered, On-Demand Professional Development Participating Schools versus Their Respective Districts.

Program Evaluation and Impact Assessment: Internet-delivered, On-Demand Professional Development Participating Schools versus Their Respective Districts.

NAEP 2007: Reading and Mathematics, Grades 4 and 8 New Jersey State Board of Education Work Session Assistant Commissioner Jay Doolan Assessment Director.

Swampscott Elementary Schools MCAS Results Grade 3 ELA Performance Level Above Proficient Proficient Needs Improvement

Dr. N.E. Roberts Elementary School. Background The Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test® (FCAT) is the state mandated test used to evaluate student and.

Florida Social Studies Sunshine State Standards Grade Level Expectations FLStandards.org.

Integrating Quantitative Literacy into Your Course.

STAT MINI- PROJECT NKU Executive Doctoral Co-hort August, 2012 Dot Perkins.

Summer ChAMP Carroll County Schools. Summer can set kids on the Right- or Wrong- Course Study links a lack of academic achievement, high drop out rates,

North Kingstown School Committee Feb. 29, 2012 MH 2/23/2012.

1 Main achievement outcomes continued.... Performance on mathematics and reading (minor domains) in PISA 2006, including performance by gender Performance.

GISD: Genesee County’s Regional Educational Service Agency GENESEE INTERMEDIATE SCHOOL DISTRICT LISA A. HAGEL SUPERINTENDENT OCTOBER 20, 2011 Understanding.

By Jessica Foland December 12, 2013 Creating a Connection between Formative Assessment and Differentiated Instruction.

Consolidated District and School Improvement Plans

What is ESSA? On December 10, 2015, the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) was signed into federal law. This law is a reauthorization of the Elementary.

Hanover Tap Water Pre-Test

EVAAS EVALUATION EFFECTIVENESS …AND WHAT DOES IT SAY???

MIDDLETOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT

Student Homelessness in NYC

Diagnosis and Remediation of Reading Difficulties

CCSD Student Learning Update April 11, 2016

Continuous Improvement/eProve Regional Trainings

Student Mobility and Achievement Growth In State Assessment Mohamed Dirir Connecticut Department of Education Paper presented at National Conference.

Summer Professional Development

Milwaukee Public Schools University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Teacher Name Teacher Name Teacher Name Teacher Name Teacher Name

Presentation transcript:

PD 360 Impact Assessment: Impact of PD 360 on Student Proficiency Rates Prepared by Steven H. Shaha, PhD, DBA Summer

PD 360 Impact Assessment Executive Summary Statistically significant* advantages were verified favoring schools with PD 360 versus District Benchmarks. Math (p<.001) Reading (p<.001) 2 * Statistical significance establishes genuine differences between groups and verifies that impacts were “real” and not merely due to chance and, in this case, due to any pre-existing biases in group differences. The appropriate p-values are included with all differences explained herein.

Reading 3 Note to Reader: To better dramatize the magnitude of the consistently favorable impact of PD 360, graphics included hereafter represent a variety of perspectives and a sampling of different interpretive insights, and not an exhaustive nor uniformly arrayed set of results.

Improvements vs.. District for All School Levels 4 experienced 72% greater improvement Students in high utilizing schools experienced 72% greater improvement than the district benchmarks (p<.001) The performance gap closed The performance gap closed to no significant difference despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p<.01) Reading

Improvements vs. District for Elementary Schools 5 experienced 84% greater improvement Elementary school students in high utilizing schools experienced 84% greater improvement than the district benchmarks (p<.001) The performance gap closed The performance gap closed to no significant difference despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p<.01) Reading

Improvements vs. District for Middle Schools 6 experienced 72% greater improvement Middle school students in high utilizing schools experienced 72% greater improvement than the district benchmarks (p<.001) schools flip-flopped with district Performance for high utilizing schools flip-flopped with district performance (p=not significant) Reading

Improvements vs. District for High Schools 7 experienced 56% greater improvement High school students in high utilizing schools experienced 56% greater improvement than the district benchmarks (p<.001) The performance gap closed The performance gap closed to no significant difference despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p<.01) Reading

Improvements vs. District for All School Levels 8 16% more teachers as registered users High performing schools were characterized by 16% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.001) viewed 2% more segments Teachers in high performing schools viewed 2% more segments than in lower performing schools (p<.01) Reading

Improvements vs. District for Elementary Schools 9 2.4% more teachers as registered users High performing elementary schools were characterized by 2.4% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.01) viewed PD % more minutes Teachers in high performing elementary schools viewed PD % more minutes than in lower performing schools (p<.01) Reading

Improvements vs. District for Middle Schools 10 50% more teachers as registered users High performing middle schools were characterized by 50% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.001) viewed 46% more segments Teachers in high performing middle schools viewed 46% more segments than in lower performing schools (p<.001) Reading

Improvements vs. District for High Schools 11 9% more teachers as registered users High performing high schools were characterized by 9% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.01) Reading

Math 12 Note to Reader: To better dramatize the magnitude of the consistently favorable impact of PD 360, graphics included hereafter represent a variety of perspectives and a sampling of different interpretive insights, and not an exhaustive nor uniformly arrayed set of results.

Improvements vs. District for All School Levels 13 Math The performance gap closed The performance gap closed to no significant difference despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p<.01) experienced 5 times greater improvement - 399% - Students in high utilizing schools experienced 5 times greater improvement - 399% - than the district benchmarks (p<.001)

Improvements vs. District for Elementary Schools 14 Math The performance gap closed The performance gap closed to no significant difference despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p<.01) experienced nearly 3 ½ times greater improvement - 235% - Students in high utilizing schools experienced nearly 3 ½ times greater improvement - 235% - than the district benchmarks (p<.001)

Improvements vs. District for Middle Schools 15 Math The performance gap closed The performance gap closed substantially despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p=not significant) experienced 4 times greater improvement - 298% - Students in high utilizing schools experienced 4 times greater improvement - 298% - than the district benchmarks (p<.001)

Improvements vs. District for High Schools 16 Math The performance gap closed The performance gap closed substantially despite beginning at a significantly lower performance level (p=not significant) experienced nearly 8 ½ times greater improvement - 749% - Students in high utilizing schools experienced nearly 8 ½ times greater improvement - 749% - than the district benchmarks (p<.001)

Improvements vs. District for All School Levels % more teachers as registered users High performing schools were characterized by 11.7% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.001) experienced 2.4% more users viewing segments Teachers in high performing schools experienced 2.4% more users viewing segments than in lower performing schools (p<.01) Math

Improvements vs. District for Elementary Schools 18 nearly 20% more teachers as registered users High performing elementary schools were characterized by nearly 20% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.001) viewed PD % more minutes Teachers in high performing elementary schools viewed PD % more minutes than in lower performing schools (p<.001) Math

Improvements vs. District for Middle Schools 19 35% more teachers as registered users High performing middle schools were characterized by 35% more teachers as registered users than lower performing schools (p<.001) viewed 5% more segments Teachers in high performing middle schools viewed 5% more segments than in lower performing schools (p<.01) Math

Improvements vs. District for High Schools 20 8% more teacher viewing High performing high schools were characterized by 8% more teacher viewing than lower performing schools (p<.01) Math