1. Student Assessment and Data Analysis Oakland Schools MAEDS 2005 Tammy L. Evans

2. MAEDS 6 October 20052 Why are educators so fired up about data?  How do we know if teachers are teaching our curriculum?  How do we maximize the value of dollars spent for assessment and data management?  Are all of our students achieving at acceptable levels? Superintendents ask…

3. MAEDS 6 October 20053 Professional learning communities ask  What is it we want our students to know and be able to do?  How will we know when they have learned it?  What will we do when students are not learning?

4. MAEDS 6 October 20054 Why are educators so fired up about “data”? Improving Student Achievement!

5. MAEDS 6 October 20055 Creating some common language about data in schools  What are the major systems?  How are they related?  What have districts done?  Where do we want to go?

6. MAEDS 6 October 20056 Assessment Systems Student Information Systems Data analysis systems Data warehouse 4 Major Data & Technology Systems in Schools Oakland Schools focus is on Assessment and Analysis (see Data warehouse PP on CD)

7. MAEDS 6 October 20057 SAS DAT PURPOSE Student Assessment System & Data Analysis Tool  Improve teaching and increase learning for all  Useful reports for teachers, principals and district administration  Common assessments tied to GLCEs  Item banks tied to GLCEs  Multiple district on-ramps

8. MAEDS 6 October 20058 What is an Assessment System?  Tool for gathering achievement information  It is assessing what is going on in classrooms.

9. MAEDS 6 October 20059 Who needs what data?  Administrators, public, legislators – Evaluation – Accountability – Long range planning  Teachers, parents, students – Diagnosis – Prescription – Placement – Short range planning – Very specific ach info e.g., What percent met standards on 4 th grade MEAP math? Are students doing better this year than they were doing last year? e.g., Who understood this concept? Why is Becky having trouble reading? A single assessment cannot meet all needs. Large Grain Size Fine Grain Size

10. MAEDS 6 October 200510 Oakland Schools’ Path to Student Achievement  Fall 2004 – Meetings with focus groups, create RFP  Oct 2004 – Meeting with Assessment, Curriculum and Technology directors from Oakland districts to discuss requirements, including multiple “on ramps”  June 2005 deadline

11. MAEDS 6 October 200511 The RFP  Input gathered from LEA focus groups in Curriculum, Assessment, Instruction and Technology  RFP authored at Oakland Schools through a collaboration between Career Focused Education, Learning Services, Research Evaluation and Assessment, Purchasing, School Quality and Technology Services.  Draft copy provided to LEA Technology and Assessment Directors for input.  Click here for details of the RFPRFP  Click here for details of the vendor pricing submittedvendor pricing submitted

12. MAEDS 6 October 200512 The Committee  OCSA charged Oakland Schools and LEAs to move forward on acquisition of assessment and analysis system.  The RFP evaluation committee was formed, consisting of ISD and LEA staff representing Assessment, Curriculum and Technology.  Representatives from OCREAC, Teaching and Learning Council, Oakland County Technology Directors, OCSA Instruction &Technology subcommittee.  Committee members were from Berkley, Huron Valley, Lamphere, Lake Orion, Troy, Novi, South Lyon, Walled Lake and West Bloomfield.

13. MAEDS 6 October 200513 ISD Collaboration  Jan 2005 – Oakland Schools and Wayne RESA met to review strategic goals around assessment and data analysis.  Joint RFP was created  Wayne RESA joined RFP evaluation committee  Wayne RESA and Oakland Schools separated scoring and recommendation for individual needs and approvals.

14. MAEDS 6 October 200514 The evaluation begins  10 vendors responded to the RFP  The committee met to review the responses.  The committee chose three vendors for demonstrations  Click here for the Debriefing Voting Results.Debriefing Voting Results.

15. MAEDS 6 October 200515 The demonstrations Vendors were asked to cover specific points.specific points Half day demonstrations for each vendor were held at Farmington Training Center on March 10 & 11, 2005.  All Oakland Schools LEAs were invited to send representatives to the demonstrations.  Over 100 participants reviewed the products and were asked to complete a survey. – Click here for the Survey results. Click here for the Survey results.

16. MAEDS 6 October 200516 Further evaluation  After the demonstrations, the committee met to discuss the products and created a pros/cons list for each vendor.  Using an audience response system, the group prioritized the functionality of the products and rated each vendor on those functional areas. (see SAS-DAT PP on CD for full presentation.)(see SAS-DAT PP on CD for full presentation.)  Click here for the Functionality SummaryFunctionality Summary

17. MAEDS 6 October 200517

18. MAEDS 6 October 200518

19. MAEDS 6 October 200519 Vendor References  A subcommittee was formed to conduct reference interviews.  Included committee members from Huron Valley, South Lyon, Walled Lake and West Bloomfield and Oakland Schools  Plato – two references, EduSoft – two references, Pearson – three references  Click here for the Reference QuestionsReference Questions  The reference information was synthesized and presented to the committee on April 11.  Click here for the Reference Call SummaryReference Call Summary

20. MAEDS 6 October 200520 Further Analysis  Reviewed goals of RFP  Reviewed priority & ranking from vendor demonstrations  Reviewed vendor reference calls  Reviewed pricing

21. MAEDS 6 October 200521 The Evaluation  Filled out evaluation sheets – Click here for the Evaluation FormEvaluation Form  Results tallied: – Plato4680 – EduSoft4350 – Pearson5720

22. MAEDS 6 October 200522 Site Visit  May 4, 2005 – Putnam City Schools, OK  Met with Curriculum Director, principals to review product in use.

23. MAEDS 6 October 200523 Facilitated Product Demonstration  May 5, 2005 – Oakland Schools  SAS-DAT Committee members were invited to participate in a test drive of Benchmark and Inform.

24. MAEDS 6 October 200524 Principal’s Dashboard

25. MAEDS 6 October 200525 Teacher’s Dashboard

26. MAEDS 6 October 200526 Parent’s / Student’s Dashboard

27. MAEDS 6 October 200527 Oakland Schools Support  Models defined to support diverse needs of districts and multiple on-ramps  Monetary support  Curriculum, Item Banks, and Assessments delivered to all districts

28. MAEDS 6 October 200528 The Partnership  Created Benchmark “Lite” – Host for Oakland Schools’ Standard curriculum Units / Lesson plans Assessments – MCF – Michigan Curriculum Framework – Common assessments tied to GLCEs – Item banks tied to GLCEs – Allows districts to create assessments  Benchmark “Full” – administer tests (scan or web based) – report scoring  Inform – Analyzes test responses down to the individual student

29. MAEDS 6 October 200529 Where we are now…  Conversion for 27 of 29 districts  Training  Implementation! August 2005+  Sharing experience with other MI districts. – Contract allows for state purchase – Increased participation reduces cost for all

30. MAEDS 6 October 200530 MACUL 2006 Presentation will cover…  Success stories  Lessons Learned  Examples of classroom assessment  Examples of analysis  Website and demonstration

31. MAEDS 6 October 200531 Questions