Data-Driven Conversations with Special Education Teachers and Administrators to Improve Student Outcomes and State Accountability Emily Wolk Department of Research and Evaluation Santa Ana Unified School District 1

Quick Overview Who We Are –SAUSD Demographic Data The Problem –Low achievement of Students Participating in Special Education The Study and What We Found What We Did to Improve Our Outcomes 2

Santa Ana Unified School District At a Glance 53,104 Enrolled in K-12 –36 elementary; 9 intermediate; 10 high schools –95.4% Hispanic –58.3% English Learner –77.3% Socio-Eco Disadvantaged –9.1% Special Education 68% Mild/Moderate and 32% Moderate/Severe 79% Special Ed. and English Learners –89% at or below Intermediate on CELDT 3

The Problem Low Achievement of Students Participating in Special Education State and Federal Accountability Indicators API 4 Year Summary 2007 Growth 2008 Growth 2009 Growth 2010 Growth TLL 4-yr Growth SAUSD Students with Disabilities STAR ELA 2009STAR ELA 2010 Percent Proficient Target: 45% Percent Proficient Target: 56% DistrictDistrict-wideSpec EdDistrict-wideSpec Ed SAUSD38.4%18.5%40.5%21.9% 4.7%2.9%2.1%3.4% Total #32,9612,96031,8553,026

Our Challenges... Use of Accommodations and Modifications –Rarely used –But, if used, what was used may not have been the most effective at supporting students during testing “supervised breaks” and “beneficial time of day” Issues with the Special Education Information System (SEIS) –Drop down menus did/do not match up with CDE Accommodations and Modifications Matrix –No drop down menu for CMA, teachers must type Sites received conflicting information regarding testing regulations and guidelines related to accommodations and modifications Alignment of instruction to how students were being tested IEP goals Training, training, training –Fully trained and the “right” training –Creating IEP 5

What did we do to address these issues? Analyzed data from STAR file to determine –which students were given which test –which accommodations and modifications were used and how these students performed –How students with various disabilities performed based on the test they took and accommodations or modifications that were provided Created reports to make the data accessible to and understandable for administrators, program specialists and special education teachers Provided overall findings based on students’ primary disability And, training, training and training for every administrator, program specialist and special education teacher 6

FrequencyPercent CAPA I942.4 CAPA II-V CMA with Accommodations CMA Only CST with Accommodations & Modifications25.7 CST with Modifications Only12.3 CST with Accommodations Only CST (with Disability Code) No Accommodations or Modifications 1, Total * STAR File 3, SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA File by Test Taken 7

Most Common CMA Accommodations: Test Read Aloud (n=296), Supervised Breaks (n=225), Admin. Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=109) Most Common CST Accommodations: Supervised Breaks (n=300), Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=97), Tested More than One Day (n=40) *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 528 CST Refusals (n=311) CMA Refusals (n=226) 8 We also examined: Students with the following primary disabilities: Autism Intellectual Disability Speech and Language Etc.

SAUSD Special Education (Specific Learning Disability) STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 328 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 9

The Layout of Your Report Fields J-Y: Disability Information, Test Taken, Score, Accommodation/Modifcation Field I: English Proficiency Field Z-AB: (previous year test, scale score Field AC: Case Manager 10

The Process for Looking At The Data: Next Steps Review the District Special Education Data Look for trends and patterns by test taken Look for trends and patterns by disability Look at your site level Special Education report, student by student IEP team may decide student may be best served taking the same test with the same accommodations [modifications] Student scored proficient or advanced Student’s score increased from previous year IEP team may decide student is best served taking the same test with the same accommodations [modifications] Student scored Basic IEP team should review students’ performance and decide whether student should be tested using an alternate test and/or different accommodation [modification] Student scored Below Basic or Far Below Basic IEP team should review students’ performance and decide whether student should be tested using an alternate test [or different accommodation/ modification] Look for trends and patterns by test performance level Look for trends and patterns by disability performance level How does EL proficiency come into play? 11

Easy to Use Usage Forms 12

Our Results SAUSD STAR Percent Proficient District-wide and Special Education and API 4 Year Summary 2007 Growth 2008 Growth 2009 Growth 2010 Growth TLL 4-yr Growth 2011 Growth TLL 5-yr Growth SAUSD Students with Disabilities STAR ELA 2010STAR ELA 2011 Percent Proficient Target: 56% Percent Proficient Target: 67% DistrictDistrict-wideSpec EdDistrict-wideSpec Ed SAUSD40.5%21.9%44.3%32.4% 2.1%3.4%3.8%10.5% Total #31,8553,02632,0623,276

What We Learned Creating access to data and making it understandable improves student performance on state and federal indicators Discussing findings with special education teachers and administrators increases their knowledge about testing and testing accommodations and modifications Working closely with special education improves the consistency and accuracy of the information being disseminated to sites Providing student lists disaggregated at the school and case manager level assists with monitoring student achievement and “best fit” 14

Contact Information Department of Research and Evaluation Emily Wolk

SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 1491 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 16

SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA nd Grade Only Performance Levels by Test Taken *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 17

SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA and Performance Levels by Test Taken n=

SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA and Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 528 Most Common ‘10-’11 CMA Accommodations.: Read Aloud (n=1256), Supervised Breaks (n=549), Admin. Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=206) Most Common ‘09-’10 CMA Accommodations: Read Aloud (n=296), Supervised Breaks (n=225), Admin. Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=109) *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis CMA ‘09-’10 Refusals (n=226) CMA ‘10-’11 Refusals (n=175) 19

SAUSD Special Education STAR ELA & Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 6 Most Common ‘10-’11 CST Accommodations: Supervised Breaks (n=202), Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=69), Tested More than One Day (n=67) Most Common ‘09-’10 CST Accommodations: Supervised Breaks (n=300), Test Beneficial Time of Day (n=97), Tested More than One Day (n=40) *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis CST ‘09-’10 Refusals (n=311) CST ‘10-’11 (n=172) 20

SAUSD Special Education (Intellectual Disability) STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 11 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 21

SAUSD Special Education (Specific Learning Disability) STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 1077 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 22

SAUSD Special Education (Autism) STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 84 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 23

SAUSD Special Education (Speech & Language) STAR ELA Performance Levels by Test Taken n= 57 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 24

SAUSD Special Education STAR CMA ELA Performance Levels of Students Using Accommodations n= 1709 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 25

SAUSD Special Education STAR CST ELA Performance Levels of Students Using Accommodations n= 1060 *Note: Missing scores were not included in this analysis 26