1. Online Data Workshop
SIP Office of Curriculum and Instruction Office of School Improvement

2. Important Links
School Data Report and Content Focus
FCAT Results Combined Grades
FCAT Results by sub-groups including content cluster results by sub-groups
Benchmark Analysis of District Interim Assessments
FCAT Resources:

3. School Improvement Plan & Accountability School Improvement Plan
School Grading
School Improvement Plan
No Child Left Behind Act
Adequate Yearly Progress 3

4. Data Reports for SIP 2005-2009 FCAT, School Grade, and AYP
Performance
Content Cluster Analysis
A Year at a Glance
FCAT
Baseline Assessment
District Interim Assessments
AYP
Total
Subgroups

5. 2005-2009 FCAT, School Grade, and AYP
FCAT Mathematics - Grade 3
Year 
Total Students Tested
% Levels 3-5
Number Sense
Measurement
Geometry
Algebraic Thinking
Data Analysis
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct 
2009
109 61 12
50% 8 7
57% 6
71%
2008 99 53
58%
2007
119 54
2006
158 46
43%
2005
140
42%
63%
FCAT Mathematics - Grade 4 92 58 11
55%
101 56 39
45% 43 10
60% 85 51
FCAT Mathematics - Grade 5 36 13
46%
108 25
31%
36% 95
38% 90 24
105 40
The report look like this.
5 years of FCAT performance and content cluster by grade level in reading, math, writing, and science.
5 years of school grade data
1 year of AYP

6. 2005-2009 FCAT Content Cluster Analysis
Mathematics - Grade 5
Year 
Total Students Tested
% Levels 3-5
Number Sense
Measurement
Geometry
Algebraic Thinking
Data Analysis
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct 
2009
109 
 36 13
46% 11
45% 12
42%
2008 83 51
31%
36%
2007 78 55
38%
2006 63 46
2005 70 64
Average % Correct
This section displays the FCAT performance and content cluster analysis. In this example, data is for math grade 5.
The first column indicates year, followed by the number of students tested. Next, the data display the % of students scoring FCAT Levels 3 to means 51% of 83 students scored FCAT levels 3-5.
The next four set of data displays content cluster. For math, there are 5 clusters or strand. The possible points represent atotal point of this cluster. In most part, it can be the number of questions on the test.
(NS 13 points has 12 items; Mea 11 points has 11 items; Geo 13 points has 8 items
Alg 11 points has 10 items; DA 13 points has 8 items)
Average % correct – 45% average % correct means out of 13 points, on the average these 83 students earned about 46% of 13 points or about 6 points.
Study complexity, item specification, and lesson learned, state released tested.
FCAT, %Levels 3-5

7. Total Black Hispanic White Asian ELL Eco. Disadv. SWD American Indian
AYP
Year
Schoolwide Status
TOTAL
AYP Criteria Note:
SCHOOL GRADE
AYP STATUS
% AYP MET
95% Tested Reading Met?1
95% Tested Math Met?1
Reading Proficiency Met?3
Math Proficiency Met?4
Total Writing Met?2
Graduation Met?5
1. At least 95% tested in reading/math. 2. At least 1% improvement in writing or has a writing rate of 90% or better.
% Tested
Made AYP?
# of Students
% Proficient
Prof. TG Reading
Prof. TG Math
3-4. Met proficiency target (see table), Safe Harbor or Growth Model. 5. At least 1% improvement in graduation rate or has a graduation rate of 85% or better. 6. School grade not D or F.
65%
68% A
YES
100% 99
349 53
350 62 NA
58%
62% D NO
82%
428 45
427 43
51%
56% C
92%
100
425 51
429 44
44%
50%
Combined: 100%-YES
439 54 46
37%
BLACK
HISPANIC
319
320 26
389
387 30 31 50
391 28
400 **
WHITE
ASIAN 3
Combined: %-NA
AMERICAN INDIAN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS 12 15 2
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED
STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
311 52
312 63 22
386
385 42 32 35
375
379 39
402 33
Total
Black
Hispanic
White
Asian
American Indian
ELL
Eco. Disadv.
SWD

8. One Year at a Glance
Performance and Content Cluster Analysis by Grade
FCAT
Mar. 2008
Sept. 2008
Baseline Assessment
Oct. 2008
Jan. 2009
District Interim Assessment
Mar. 2009
FCAT

9. 2008-09 One Year at a Glance Reading, Grade 3 Math, Grade 3
Science, Grade 5
School Grade
AYP

10. Dig Deeper into Data Strand/Cluster Analysis
Content Focus by Benchmark
Benchmark Analysis (Using Edusoft on District Interim Assessment)
Item Analysis (Using Edusoft on District Interim Assessment)

11. SSS Math Benchmarks and Content Focus
2008
2009

12. Benchmark Analysis Reports
Benchmark Analysis of the District Interim Assessments

13. FCAT Mathematics Content Focus Assessment Results

14. Essential Questions
Do you know what your students should know and be able to do each year in math/reading/science?
Can you identify the gap between where students are right now in relation to high standards?
What instructional strategies can you use to accelerate students to attain high standards?

15. Essential Questions
How prepared are you to effectively use assessment to determine ways to alter instruction to meet high standards?
Do you have effective classroom-level assessments to help you clearly determine whether students are meeting high standards?

16. Questions Do you know why you are getting the results you get?
Do you know why you are NOT getting the results you want?

17. Questions
What would your school be like if your school was achieving its goals and expectations for student learning?

18. Building the Bridge Between Data and Results
Leadership & Capacity
Structured Collaboration
Frequent Data Use
Instructional Improvement
School Culture/Equity