1. PSSA and the Girard School District An analysis of the 2009 results and their implications. Katrina Johnston ED520INA

2. “It is not necessary to change. Survival is not mandatory.” W. Edward Deming

3. Purpose for Presentation Look at NCLB/PSSA tests Analyze our PSSA Scores Suggest some solutions for improvement

4. How did we get here? No Child Left Behind –accountability for results –high expectations for students –“more freedom” for states and communities –proven education methods –more choices for parents

5. How does NCLB affect PA? High Standards Annual Assessments Accountability for Results Highly Qualified Teachers in Every Classroom (HQT) Information and Options for Parents All Children on Grade Level By 2014

6. PA Educational Standards Approved for all subjects –Arts and Humanities –History –Reading, Writing, Speaking and Listening –Civics and Government –Math Science and Technology –Family and Consumer Science –Geography

7. PSSA Tests Students test in 3-8 & 11th grade –Reading (AYP) –Mathematics (AYP) –Writing –Science

8. PSSA Tests Identify what students should know and be able to do at varying grade levels. Standards-based assessment used to measure a student’s attainment of the academic standards.

9. PSSA Scores Assist teachers in identifying students who need of additional educational opportunities. Provide information to schools for curriculum and instruction improvement and planning.

10. Current Advanced/Proficiency Levels Reading = 63% Mathematics = 56 % Currently Writing and Science scores are not used when determining AYP.

11. Making AYP Schools must make targets overall AND in subgroups. Subgroup = 40 or more students within a group. –IEP students –Economically Disadvantaged

12. Making AYP Graduation rate and overall attendance also taken into account. Participation (%) in the tests also is considered (for overall and subgroups).

13. Pennsylvania's General Performance Level Descriptors Advanced ProficientBasicBelow Basic superior academic performance an in-depth understanding and exemplary display of the skills satisfactory academic performance solid understanding and adequate display of the skills marginal academic performance partial understanding/ limited display of the skills approaching satisfactory performance need for additional instructional opportunities inadequate academic performance little understanding and minimal display of the skills major need for additional instructional opportunities and/or increased student academic commitment

14. Analysis of Reading Scores Elk Valley Elementary School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result Overall82.70.1 √ IEP/Special Education 39.64.8SHC* Economically Disadvantaged 78.96.3 √ 2009 Target = 63%

15. Analysis of Reading Scores - EVES % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result IEP/Special Education 39.64.8SHC* *Safe Harbor with Confidence Interval group did not meet AYP in previous year ≥10% reduction in # of students below proficient C.I. allowed for Safe Harbor is 75%.

16. Comparison to County Schools

17. Analysis of Reading Scores Rice Avenue Middle School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result Overall78.06.0 √ IEP/Special Education 29.03.5SHC Economically Disadvantaged 66.85.4 √ 2009 Target = 63%

18. Comparison to County Schools

19. Analysis of Reading Scores Girard High School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result Overall65.9-2.1 √ Economically Disadvantaged 48.2-13.7 X 2009 Target = 63%

20. School Improvement I - GHS Result of not making AYP for 2 consecutive years. Infrastructure changes must occur.

21. Comparison to County Schools

22. Analysis of Mathematics Scores Elk Valley Elementary School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result Overall93.64.6 √ IEP/Special Education 72.918.6 √ Economically Disadvantaged 89.46.5 √ 2009 Target = 56%

23. Comparison to County Schools

24. Analysis of Mathematic Scores Rice Avenue Middle School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result Overall86.3-2.2 √ IEP/Special Education 48.0-4.9CI* Economically Disadvantaged 76.5-6.1 √ 2009 Target = 56%

25. Analysis of Mathematic Scores Rice Avenue Middle School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result IEP/Special Education 48.0-4.9CI* Confidence Interval (CI) Students abilities vary from year to year. 95% CI used for AYP.

26. Comparison to County Schools

27. Analysis of Mathematic Scores Girard High School % At/Above Proficient Inc./Dec. from Last Year Result Overall61.1-6.2 √ Economically Disadvantaged 48.2-8.9CI 2009 Target = 56%

28. Comparison to County Schools

29. Why do we need to improve? AYP targets are the same this year, but … YearReadingMath 2010 - 201167%72% 2011 - 201278%81% 2012 - 201389%91% 2013 - 2014100%

30. Why do we need to improve? GHS is in School Improvement –Must now make AYP 2 years in a row to be removed from School Improvement I. –Must develop and implement an improvement plan.

31. How Can We Improve?

32. Methods to Improve Scores “Insanity is doing the same things over and over again and expecting the different results” - Albert Einstein.

33. Time? Learning is a function of time. Increase time in naturally aligned courses. –Reading/Writing across the curriculum –Increase emphasis on math in math based sciences

34. More Core Course (for those who need them) Increase English reading and math Link courses Target students in 10 th grade for PSSA pro-active classes

35. Integrate Reading and Writing Across the Curriculum Send more teachers to PLN training. Provide in-house training on literacy strategies. Increase reading and writing in ALL classes.

36. Other Changes Study skills and test taking mini-courses. Small group, classroom testing as opposed to mass testing in the auditorium.

37. Student Attitude “The learner's attitude is thus an essential factor to determine the direction of his learning, whether he shall learn to do or not learn to do.” - William Kilpatrick, Prof of Education 1917

38. Teacher’s Attitude “Don't try to fix the students, fix ourselves first. The good teacher makes the poor student good and the good student superior. When our students fail, we, as teachers, too, have failed.” - Marva Collins

39. Review We are not in bad shape, but we do need to improve. GHS must make changes to come out of School Improvement.

40. Review All schools need to reach out to the economically disadvantaged and IEP sub- groups. Literacy strategies need to be incorporated in the middle school and high school.

41. Review Strategic interventions need to occur. Administrators, teachers and students need to be active participants in change.

42. Resources Albert Einstein (photo). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/albert_eins tein_-325x378.png?w=325&h=378. http://thebsreport.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/albert_eins tein_-325x378.png?w=325&h=378 Keep thinking (photo). Retrieved September 15, 2009 from http://www.thinkingtub.com/joomla/images/stories/about _us/keep_thinking.jpg. http://www.thinkingtub.com/joomla/images/stories/about _us/keep_thinking.jpg Expert panel on assessment and accountability. (June 2007). Assessment and accountability for improving schools and learning: Principles and recommendations for federal law and state and local systems. Retrieved September 2, 2009 from www.edaccountability.org.www.edaccountability.org Pennsylvania Department of Education. (January 2009). Accommodations guidelines. Pennsylvania Department of Education. Assessment. Retrieved September 9, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/site/default.asp. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/site/default.asp

43. Resources Pennsylvania Department of Education. (November 2004). Context counts: Background and strategies for improving student achievement. Retrieved September 13, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/PDE_Context_Counts_11_9_04_Pres entation.pdf. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/PDE_Context_Counts_11_9_04_Pres entation.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Education. (September 2008). Data informed decision making: A school level blueprint in a standards aligned system. Retrieved September 11, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/08Blueprint5-14- 08.pdf.http://www.pde.state.pa.us/a_and_t/lib/a_and_t/08Blueprint5-14- 08.pdf Pennsylvania Department of Education. (April 2004). Pennsylvania’s NCLB position paper. Retrieved September 10, 2009 from http://www.pde.state.pa.us/nclb/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=105927. http://www.pde.state.pa.us/nclb/cwp/view.asp?a=3&Q=105927 U.S. Department of Education. (2009). NCLB and other elementary/secondary policy documents. Retrieved September 4, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/states/index.html