1. Data Review and Discussion David Holland

2. Desired Outcomes
Classify educational data to develop a four-dimensional view of campus performance
Visualize district data through various perspectives to spark discussion about campus-level opportunities for improvement
Recognize the potential impact of increasing STAAR performance standards
Understand the basic attributes of the 2014 accountability system

3. Multiple Measures of Data
Enrollment, Mobility, Attendance, Dropout/ Graduation Rate, Ethnicity, Gender, Grade Level, Teachers, Language proficiency
Programs, Instructional Strategies, Classroom Practices, Assessment Strategies, Summer School, Finance, Transportation
Demographics
Perceptions
School Processes
Perceptions of Learning Environments, Values and Beliefs, Attitudes, Questionnaires, Observations
Student
Learning
Standardized Tests, Norm/Criterion Referenced Tests, Grade Point Average, Formative Assessment
Copyright © Education for the Future Initiative, Chico, CA

4. Multiple Measures of Data
To which of these data sources do we typically pay the most attention? D
Demographics SP
Which of these data sources do we have the least control over? P
School
Processes
Perception
Which do we have the most control over?
Student Learning SL
In which area are we are we least likely to collect data?

5. Multiple Measures of Data
Does a relationship exist between student (or staff) attendance and standardized test scores?

6. The nature of our work

7. Data Ownership Your Data vs. My Data / Our Data
Increasing data ownership
Need to turn data into actionable information
Data leads to questions which promotes discussion and data seeking
Manipulation of data “by hand” encourages pattern seeking and AHAs not otherwise discernable through canned reports

8. You can lead a horse to water . . .
Sometimes you have to salt the oats
How will you create a sense of urgency on your campus to evaluate and improve learning processes?

9. Predicting STAAR passing using ISIP

11. L2p1
ISIP cut

13. Predicting STAAR passing using ISIP
Below ISIP Cut Score
Above ISIP Cut Score
Passed STAAR
False Negatives 52
True Positives
1229
Failed STAAR
True Negatives 99
False Positives
144
1328 correct classifications / 1524 tests = 87.1% correct
What other data sources are available on your campus to indicate the effectiveness of the instructional program?

14. So, how did we do?
As compared to what?

15. Longitudinal Performance
TAAS
TAKS
STAAR

16. Longitudinal Performance
TAAS
TAKS
STAAR

17. Longitudinal Performance
Reading / ELA
Mathematics
TAKS
TAKS
STAAR
STAAR

18. Comparison Performance

19. Longitudinal Performance

20. Longitudinal Performance

21. STAAR M Performance

22. ARD Decision Making
100 students / 1700 in grade level = 5.9%
cohort

23. STAAR M Performance

24. ARD Decision Making

25. ARD Decision Making

26. Consider the process and system
What processes were used to determine which test was most appropriate for students?
What implications does the decision-making process have for
Individual students?
Your campus?
The campus you feed into?
The district?
Next year?

27. STAAR A Special online administration of STAAR
Similar in many ways to STAAR L and Standardized Oral Administration (SOA)
Full suite of accommodations available through online tools for all students who qualify
How will we give students opportunities to utilize available online accommodations during instruction?

28. Phase-in Standards Recommended Phase 2 Phase 1 TBD (2016?) TBD (2015?)
(proposed)

29. Phase-in Standards Level I Level II Level III Satisfactory Advanced P1
Unsatisfactory
Academic
Performance
Level II
Satisfactory
Academic
Performance
Level III
Advanced
Academic
Performance P1 P2
75%
85%
Inadequately prepared for the next grade level or course
Sufficiently prepared for the next grade level or course
Well prepared for the next grade level or course

30. Phase-in Standards
As compared to 2014, how many more items will your students need to get correct in order to pass in 2015?
How will your instructional system respond to the increased challenge of higher passing standards?

31. Phase-in Standards

32. Phase-in Standards

33. Phase-in Standards

34. Phase-in Standards

35. 2014 Accountability System Update
Part 1
Overview of the Accountability System
Index 1 – Student Achievement
Index 2 – Student Progress
Part 2
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
ELL Inclusion
Distinction Designations

36. 2014 Accountability System
Distinction Designations
Index 1 – Student Achievement
Target
Index 2 – Student Progress
Target
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
Target
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
Target
Met Standard = Met or exceeded target in all indexes
Improvement Required = Did not meet or exceed target in all indexes

37. Index 1 – Student Achievement
2014 Accountability
Subjects
Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies
Groups
All Students
Versions
STAAR, L, M, Alt
Standard
Level II Phase 1
EOCs
Reading I and II (Jul & Dec 2013)
English I and II (Spring 2014)
Algebra I
Biology
US History
Substitute Assessment
Level II Final
Target 55
ELLs
See later slides

38. Index 2 – Student Progress
2014 Accountability
Subjects
Reading, Math
Groups
All Students, Race/Ethnicity, Special Education, ELLs
Standard
Met progress (1 point)
Exceeded progress (2 points)
EOCs
ELA not evaluated
Algebra I (MS only)
High schools not evaluated on Index 2 in 2014
Versions
STAAR, M, Alt, SpEng, grade skip
Target
5th percentile (ES, MS, District)

39. Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
2014 Accountability
Subjects
Reading, Writing, Math, Science, Social Studies
Versions
STAAR, M, Alt
Groups
Economically disadvantaged,
Two lowest performing prior-year subgroups
Min Size
At least 25 reading and 25 math tests
Standard
Level II Phase 1 (1 point)
Level III (2 points)
Target
5th percentile (ES, MS, HS, District)

40. Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness
2014 Accountability
Groups
All Students, Race/Ethnicity, Special Education, ELLs
Indicators
Graduation rate (4 yr or 5 yr)
Graduation plan (Percentage RHSP/DAP)
STAAR Level II Final
Percentage met standard on 2 or more assessments
Postsecondary component
Percentage met TSI in ELA and math
Weighting
(District/HS)
25% Graduation rate
25% Graduation plan
25% STAAR Level II Final
25% Postsecondary component
(MS / Elem)
100% STAAR Level II Final
Substitute
Level II Final
Targets
Elementary: 12
Middle School: 13
High School: 57
District: 57

41. Inclusion of ELLs in 2014 Yrs US Index 1 Index 2 Index 3 Index 4
1st year
Not included
2nd year
Spanish
Level II Phase 1
English
ELL Progress Measure
STAAR Progress Measure
ELL Progress Meas.
Level III
Level II Final
(if Spanish in any subject)
3rd year
4th year
5+ years
Immigrants entering at grade 9+
ELL Progress Measure (yrs 2-4)
Asylees, refugees, and students w/ interrupted formal education
1st - 5th year
6th year or more

42. Distinction Designations
2013
2014
Level
Campus
District
Distinctions
Academic Achievement
Reading/ELA
Mathematics
Top 25%
Index 2 (Student Progress)
Science
Social Studies
Index 3 (Closing Gaps)
Postsecondary Readiness (HS/District)
Targets
Campuses
Top quartile of 40-campus comparison group
District (Postsecondary readiness only)
At least 70% of campus indicators in top quartile for postsecondary readiness

43. Accountability stuff you have
State Target = 55
Federal Target = 79

44. Accountability stuff you have

45. District Accountability Estimates
Target
Score
Index 1 – Student Achievement 55 80
+25
Index 2 – Student Progress
5th %ile 41 ?
Index 3 – Closing Performance Gaps
5th %ile 41 ?
Index 4 – Postsecondary Readiness 57 60
+3?
25% Graduation rate
25% Graduation plan
25% STAAR Level II Final
25% Postsecondary component (TSI)

46. Desired Outcomes
Classify educational data to develop a four-dimensional view of campus performance
Visualize district data through various perspectives to spark discussion about campus-level opportunities for improvement
Recognize the potential impact of increasing STAAR performance standards
Understand the basic attributes of the 2014 accountability system

47. Final thoughts and considerations
We are seeing the positive impact of the difficult work we are doing
To meet the upcoming challenges of the assessment and accountability systems we must continue to improve our practice to ensure that all students are well prepared to succeed at the next level