DATA PROJECT:USING DATA TO MAKE DECISIONSEDL 630A

Holly Cronin

A Burning Question…

Does the special education subgroup fail to meet AYP in Elementary School X?• If so, by what percentage could a district

increase the proficiency of special education students in order to meet AYP in anyone one of the four ways?

• Is there a correlation between the performance of special education students in reading and math?

Research of Burning Question: Important of AYP

“No Child Left Behind requires that each state establish an accountability plan calling for all students to meet required levels of academic performance by the 2013-2014 school year” (Sorrentino and Zirkel, 2004).

“Schools must show they are making ‘adequate yearly progress,’ (AYP), toward the goal of all students achieving proficiency in mathematics and reading/language arts by the year 2014” (Choi, 2007).

Research of Burning Question:Conflicting Message of AYP

“Most accountability tests end up measuring what students bring to school, not what they learn once they arrive” (Popham, 2010).

“Some schools that failed to meet AYP who were making exceptional progress, relative to the district, for their average and above-average initial status students. These successes were masked by their AYP designation” (Choi, 2007).

Research of Burning Question:Moving Forward

“Schools already constrained by limited resources…will have to develop innovative strategies to meet the conflicting mandates of NCLB, IDEA, and 504” (Sorrentino and Zirkel, 2004).

School districts need resources to develop these innovate strategies.

DATA

What data can we use to answer these questions?

A look at the history of one school’s (referred to as Elementary School X) subgroups’ performance.

AYP projected percentages for current 6th Grade Students (based on their 5th grade data).

A closer look into the performance of students in a the special education subgroup.

A correlation between reading and math performance.

DATA: History of Subgroup’s Performance

History of Subgroup’s Percent Proficient or Above at Elementary School X in Reading and Math from the

2006-2011 school years.

Elementary School X: AYP Results from 2011-2012

2010-11 Weighting Method Based on U.S. Department of Education

  Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7

GRADE

# of Students Taking the Test (Required Test

Type = STR or ALT with a valid Raw or

Scaled score)

# of Students that Scored at or Above the

Proficient levelon the Test (both STR and ALT)

2010-11 Percent Proficient

Target Percent Proficient

Difference between Percent

Proficient and Target Percent

Proficient

Percent of students taking

assessment enrolled in each

grade

Weighted AYP proficiency

      (Column2/Column1)  (Column3-Column4)

(Column1/Total taking)

(Column5xColumn6)

Math Assessment 2010-11Grade 3 24 12 50.0 76.4 -26.4 1.00 -26.400000Grade 4 28 13 46.4 80.3 -33.9 1.17 -39.516667Grade 5 27 11 40.7 69.8 -29.1 1.13 -32.691667Grade 6 22 19 86.4 73.1 13.3 0.92 12.158333Grade 7 0 0 68.4 Grade 8 0 0 68.5 Grade 10 0 0 76.0 Grade 3-8+10 Total 24           -86.5            If H14>=0 then

AYP=METNot Met

Reading Assessment 2010-11

             

Grade 3 24 10 41.7 82.7 -41.0 1.00 -41.033333Grade 4 28 16 57.1 81.0 -23.9 1.17 -27.883333Grade 5 27 15 55.6 81.0 -25.4 1.13 -28.625000Grade 6 22 15 68.2 85.5 -17.3 0.92 -15.875000Grade 7 0 0 81.2 Grade 8 0 0 84.3 Grade 10 0 0 83.1 Grade 3-8+10 Total 24           -113.4

           If H24>=0 then

AYP=METNot Met

AYP Projected Percentages2010-11 Weighting Method Based on U.S. Department of Education

  Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Column 4 Column 5 Column 6 Column 7

GRADE

# of Students Taking the Test (Required Test

Type = STR or ALT with a valid Raw or

Scaled score)

# of Students that Scored at or Above

the Proficient levelon the Test

(both STR and ALT)

2010-11 Percent Proficient

Target Percent Proficient

Difference between Percent

Proficient and Target Percent

Proficient

Percent of students taking

assessment enrolled in each

grade

Weighted AYP proficiency

     (Column2/Column1)  

(Column3-Column4)

(Column1/Total taking)

(Column5xColumn6)

Math Assessment 2010-11Grade 3 0 0 76.4 Grade 4 0 0 80.3 Grade 5 0 0 69.8 Grade 6 24 7 29.2 73.1 -43.9 1.00 -43.933333Grade 7 0 0 68.4 Grade 8 0 0 68.5 Grade 10 0 0 76.0 Grade 3-8+10 Total 24           -43.9            If H14>=0 then

AYP=METNot Met

Reading Assessment 2010-11

             

Grade 3 0 0 82.7 Grade 4 0 0 81.0 Grade 5 0 0 81.0 Grade 6 24 12 50.0 85.5 -35.5 1.00 -35.500000Grade 7 0 0 81.2 Grade 8 0 0 84.3 Grade 10 0 0 83.1 Grade 3-8+10 Total 24           -35.5

           If H24>=0 then

AYP=METNot Met

Projected Percentages to Meet AYPin 6th Grade Math/Reading

There are 4 ways that a school can reach AYP1. Meet Expectations: Reaching Target

Proficient Percentage2. 2-Year Average3. Safe Harbor:10% or greater reduction in

Non-Proficient 4. Growth Calculation

Reading 40% of 27 students = 11 students. Meaning at least 16 students need to reach proficient Math 60% of 27 students = 16 students. Meaning at least 11 students need to reach proficient.

Projected Percentages to Meet AYPin 6th Grade Math/Reading

The percentage of proficient special education students currently in 6th grade is 50%. In order to meet AYP based on… Meeting Expectations: needs

to increase by30.5% to reach target of 85.5%

Safe Harbor: 40% of 27 students can be non-proficient so that means at least 16 students need to reach proficient.

The percentage of proficient special education students currently in 6th grade is 29.2%. In order to meet AYP based on… Meeting Expectations: needs

to increase by 43.9% to reach target of 73.1%

Safe Harbor: 60% of 27 students can be non-proficient. That means at least 11 students need to reach proficient.

Reading Math

Special Education Subgroup Performance

Informational Text Literary Text Reading Process Acquisition of

Vocabulary

Number Sense Geometry and

Spatial Sense Measurement Patterns, Functions

and Algebra Data Analysis and

Probability

Reading Standards Math Standards

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

50%

13%

38%

Informational Text: Special Ed Subgroup

AT ABOVE BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

54%

25%

21%

Literary Text: Special Ed Subgroup

AT ABOVE BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

25%

25%

50%

Reading Process: Special Ed Subgroup

AT ABOVE BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

54%

8%

37%

Aquisition of Vocabulary: Special Ed Subgroup

AT ABOVE BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

29%

4%67%

Special Ed Subgroup: Math-Number Sense

ABOVE AT BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

50%

4%

46%

Special Ed Subgroup: Math-Geometry&Spatial Sense

ABOVE AT BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

12%

8%

79%

Special Ed Subgroup: Math-Measurement

ABOVE AT BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

29%

4%67%

Special Ed Subgroup: Math-Patterns, Function & Algebra

ABOVE AT BELOW

Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

42%

8%

50%

Special Ed Subgroup: Math-Data and Probability

ABOVE AT BELOW

Reading and Math Correlation

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 900

20

40

60

80

100

120

f(x) = 0.660804237867226 x + 16.9597881066387R² = 0.436662240783284

Predicting Math Scores with Reading Scores

Mth NCELinear (Mth NCE)

Reading NCE Scores

Math

NC

E S

core

s

Integrating Reading and Math “By taking advantage of some natural

parallels between reading and mathematics, teachers can enhance students’ learning of individual content areas and their ability to make generalizations across them” (Halladay & Neumann, 2012).

One of those parallels is comprehension strategies:

“We want students to make predictions, monitor understanding, determine importance, and make connections” (Halladay & Neumann, 2012).

Integrating Reading and MathCommon Language

Metacognition Schema Determining

Importance Inferences Connections Synthesis

Monitor Understanding throughout the problem.

Have you seen a problem like this before?

What information do you need to solve the problem?

Predictions for answers. Apply problem to real-world

Does your answer make sense?

Comprehension Strategies

Problem Solving Skills

Critiques of Integrating Content Areas

If a common language is not in place this may confuse students when trying to integrate the subjects.

There are “some concerns about too much integration” (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009). It is important that teachers work together in order to create a comprehensive integrated unit. There have often been units that were poorly designed and loosely connected (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009).

In order to prevent “poorly designed and loosely connected” units, collaboration amongst teachers becomes critical.

Conclusions

Special Education students historically struggle to meet AYP at Elementary School X.

Meeting AYP by the Safe Harbor expectation is the most probable way for Elementary School X to meet AYP.

There is a correlation between reading and math scores 43% of the math scores can be predicted

based on their reading scores

Next Steps…

What percentage do the other grade levels need to shoot for in order to meet AYP?

Do the teachers need to alter their curriculum maps based on their special education students’ breakdown of standards?

More time on units compared to others? Resources needed to meet the needs of that unit?

Who do the teachers need to collaborate with in order to create more integrated math and reading classrooms?

What resources do they need to have these conversations?

Citations

Choi, K. (2007). Children Left Behind in AYP and Non-AYP Schools: Using Student Progress and the Distribution of Student Gains to Validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, p. 21-32

Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2009). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping what is Taught and Tested. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

Halladay, J. L., & Neumann, M. D. (2012). Connecting Reading and Mathematical Strategies. The Reading Teacher, 471-476.

Measure Up Ohio. Retrieved on November 5, 2012. http://measureup.edresourcesohio.org/ayp.php

Popham, J.W. (2010). Everything School Leaders Need to Know About Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Sorrentino, A., & Zirkel, P. (2004). Is NCLB Leaving Special Education Students Behind? National Association of Elementary School Principals, p26-29