1. Understanding and Addressing Achievement Gaps 2014 Title 1 Directors Conference This work was originally produced in whole or in part by American Institutes for Research for the Illinois State Board of Education with funds from the U.S. Department of Education. The content does not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Education, nor does mention or visual representation of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the federal government.

2. The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) established the Illinois Center for School Improvement (Illinois CSI) to: Provide high-quality, coordinated, and consistent support to ISBE’s statewide system of support (SSoS) Ensure that districts and schools receive expert, timely, and relevant assistance to increase district capacity, improve student performance, and close achievement gaps Illinois Center for School Improvement 2

3. High-Performing Districts, High-Achieving Students Our Vision 3

4. Outcomes for Today 4 Review the subgroups outlined in the ESEA flexibility waiver Examine research-based practices of using data to make decisions for subgroup populations Discover strategies for using data to inform decision making in reference to subgroup populations

5. 5

6. Achievement Gap 6 The difference in the performance between each ESEA subgroup within a district or school and the statewide average performance of subgroups in reading/language arts and mathematics as measured by the assessments required under the ESEA flexibility waiver.

7. Who is the gap actually between? Achievement Gap 7 ESEA Subgroups Statewide Average Performance and

8. ESEA Traditional Subgroups 8 1)Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2)Economically Disadvantaged 3)English Language Learners 4)Students with Disabilities

9.  Number your post-it 1-4.  Write the percentage of districts in Illinois you think make up each subgroup? 1)? % Racial and Ethnic Minorities 2)? % Economically Disadvantaged 3)? % English Language Learners 4)? % Students with Disabilities Think ahead…. 9

10.  African American  Hispanic  Native American 59% of Illinois schools & ? of Illinois districts qualify Racial and Ethnic Minorities 10

11. 79% of Illinois schools & ? % of Illinois districts qualify Economically Disadvantaged 11

12. English Language Learners 12 17% of Illinois schools & ? % of Illinois districts qualify

13. Students with Disabilities 13 54% of Illinois schools & ? % of Illinois districts qualify

14. Illinois Achievement 14

15. 1)Assess District Needs (DNA) 2)Set Direction 3)Develop Action and Tasks 4)Implement and Monitor Systemically and Systematically Illinois CSI Continuous Improvement Process 15

16. Team Relationships 16 District Leadership Team School Leadership Team Instructional Teams

17.  Think about the teams in which you have participated.  Was data discussed? For what purpose?  Did the conversations result in changes that impacted student achievement? Your Experience…. 17

18. 18 Trends in Grade Level Data School Trends Assessment Types and Schedules School wide interventions Supports Needed Barriers Faced Trends in Individual Students Trends in Classes of Students Classroom Level Interventions Supports Needed Barriers Faced Trends in District Wide Data Building Trends District Resources District Supports Conversations

19. Types of Assessments 19 TYPE ITYPE IITYPE III A reliable assessment that measures a certain group or subset of students in the same manner with the same potential assessment items, is scored by a non-district entity, and is administered either statewide or beyond Illinois. Any assessment developed or adopted and approved for use by the school district and used on a district wide basis by all teachers in a given grade or subject area. Any assessment that is rigorous, that is aligned to the course curriculum, and that the qualified evaluator and teacher determine measures student learning in that course. Possible Type I, II Assessments Possible Type III Assessments PARCC NWEA/MAP AIMS Web Discovery STAR EPAAS mCLASS (DIBELS) Common Assessments End of Course Exams Teacher Created Assessments Textbook Publisher Assessments

20. The strategic use of formative, interim, and summative measures of student performance to address immediate student needs, inform ongoing instructional changes, and guide long-term educational improvement. Balanced Assessment Systems 20

21.  Are we considering our subgroups when we choose what data to gather and how we administer assessments?  Do we look at the performance of our subgroups separately from the rest?  Are we making decisions about instruction based on the needs of our subgroup populations? Questions to Consider: Subgroups 21

22. Group A Join group A discussion if you would like to discuss: Ways to develop effective teaming within your continuous improvement efforts. How about your teams? 22 Group B Join group B discussion if you would like to discuss: How to support your existing teams focus around data driven decisions.

23.  Share highlights from your group conversations. Highlights 23

24. Janice Winters-- District Liaison Area VI Kevin McClure-- Content Specialist Amabel Crawford-- District Liaison Area 1-B-C Illinois Center for School Improvement 1120 East Diehl Road, Suite 200 Naperville, IL 60563-1486 General Information: 630-649-6500 or 800-356-2735 E-mail: info@illinoiscsi.org www.illinoiscsi.org 24

25. References For references, use Arial – size 18. Hanushek, E. A., & Haycock, K. (2010). An effective teacher in every classroom: A lofty goal, but how to do it? Education Next, 10(3), 47–52. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value- added measures of teacher quality. American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2008). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (NBER Working Paper No. 14607). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125(1), 175–214. 25