Post on 22-Jan-2016
description
Online Data Workshop
2009-2010 SIPOffice of Curriculum and Instruction
Office of School Improvement
Important Links• School Data Report and Content Focus
http://ossip.dadeschools.net/
• FCAT Results Combined Gradeshttp://oada.dadeschools.net/FCAT/FCAT.asp
• FCAT Results by sub-groups including content cluster results by sub-groupshttps://app1.fldoe.org/FCATDemographics/
• Benchmark Analysis of District Interim Assessmentshttp://curriculum.dadeschools.net/
• FCAT Resources: http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp
School Improvement Plan & Accountability
SchoolImprovement
Plan
2005-2009 FCAT, School Grade, and AYP• Performance• Content Cluster
Analysis
2008-09 A Year at a Glance• FCAT• Baseline
Assessment• District Interim
Assessments
2005-2009 AYP• Total• Subgroups
http://ossip.dadeschools.net
2005-2009 FCAT, School Grade, and AYPFCAT Mathematics - Grade 3
Year Total
Students Tested
% Levels 3-5
Number Sense Measurement Geometry Algebraic Thinking Data Analysis
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
2009 109 61 12 50% 8 50% 7 57% 6 50% 7 71%
2008 99 53 12 58% 8 50% 7 71% 6 50% 7 57%
2007 119 54 12 50% 8 50% 7 57% 6 50% 7 57%
2006 158 46 12 50% 8 50% 7 43% 6 50% 7 43%
2005 140 46 12 42% 8 63% 7 57% 6 50% 7 57%
FCAT Mathematics - Grade 4
Year Total
Students Tested
% Levels 3-5
Number Sense Measurement Geometry Algebraic Thinking Data Analysis
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
2009 92 58 11 55% 8 63% 7 71% 7 57% 7 57%
2008 101 56 11 55% 8 50% 7 57% 7 57% 7 71%
2007 109 39 11 45% 8 50% 7 57% 7 43% 7 43%
2006 99 43 10 60% 8 50% 7 43% 7 43% 7 57%
2005 85 51 11 55% 8 50% 7 57% 7 57% 7 43%
FCAT Mathematics - Grade 5
Year Total
Students Tested
% Levels 3-5
Number Sense Measurement Geometry Algebraic Thinking Data Analysis
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
2009 109 36 13 46% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%
2008 108 25 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 36% 12 42%
2007 95 25 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%
2006 90 24 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%
2005 105 40 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%
2005-2009 FCAT Content Cluster Analysis 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
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
Possible Points
Avg. % Correct
2009 109 36 13 46% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%2008 83 51 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 36% 12 42%2007 78 55 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%2006 63 46 13 31% 11 36% 13 38% 11 36% 12 42%2005 70 64 13 31% 11 45% 13 46% 11 45% 12 42%
FCAT, %Levels 3-5
Average % Correct
Year
Schoolwide Status TOTAL AYP Criteria Note:
SCHOOL GRADE AYP STATUS % AYP MET
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math 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?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? Year
Prof. TG Reading
Prof. TGMath
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.
2008-09 2008-09 65% 68%
2007-08 A YES 100% 99 YES 99 YES 349 53 YES 350 62 YES YES NA 2007-08 58% 62%
2006-07 D NO 82% 99 YES 99 YES 428 45 NO 427 43 NO YES NA 2006-07 51% 56%
2005-06 C NO 92% 99 YES 100 YES 425 51 YES 429 44 NO YES NA 2005-06 44% 50%
2004-05 C YES 100% Combined: 100%-YES 439 54 YES 439 46 YES YES NA 2004-05 37% 44%
BLACK HISPANIC
Year
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math Proficiency
Met?4
Year
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math Proficiency
Met?4
%Tested Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
2008-09 2008-09
2007-08 99 YES 99 YES 319 53 YES 320 62 YES 2007-08 NA NA 26 NA 26 NA
2006-07 99 YES 99 YES 389 44 NO 387 43 NO 2006-07 100 YES 100 YES 30 NA 31 NA
2005-06 99 YES 100 YES 387 50 YES 391 44 NO 2005-06 100 YES 100 YES 28 NA 28 NA
2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES 400 53 YES 400 44 YES 2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES ** NA ** NA
WHITE ASIAN
Year95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1
Reading ProficiencyMet?3
Math Proficiency Met?4
Year95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1
Reading ProficiencyMet?3
Math Proficiency Met?4
%Tested
Made AYP? %Tested
Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? %Tested
Made AYP? %Tested
Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
2008-09 2008-09
2007-08 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA 2007-08 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA
2006-07 NA NA 3 NA 3 NA 2006-07 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA
2005-06 NA NA 3 NA 3 NA 2005-06 NA NA 0 NA 0 NA
2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA 2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA
AMERICAN INDIAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
Year
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math Proficiency
Met?4
Year
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math Proficiency
Met?4
%Tested Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
2008-09 2008-09
2007-08 NA NA 3 NA 3 NA 2007-08 NA NA 12 NA 12 NA
2006-07 NA NA 3 NA 3 NA 2006-07 NA NA 15 NA 15 NA
2005-06 NA NA 2 NA 2 NA 2005-06 NA NA 12 NA 12 NA
2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA 2004-05 Combined: %-NA ** NA ** NA
ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES
Year
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math Proficiency
Met?4
Year
95% Tested Reading Met?1 95% Tested Math Met?1Reading Proficiency
Met?3Math Proficiency
Met?4
%Tested Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP?
%Tested Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP? # of Students % Proficient Made AYP?
2008-09 2008-09
2007-08 99 YES 99 YES 311 52 YES 312 63 YES 2007-08 NA NA 22 NA 22 NA
2006-07 99 YES 99 YES 386 43 NO 385 42 NO 2006-07 99 YES 100 YES 32 NA 35 NA
2005-06 99 YES 100 YES 375 50 YES 379 44 NO 2005-06 100 YES 100 YES 39 NA 39 NA
2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES 402 52 YES 402 45 YES 2004-05 Combined: 100%-YES 33 NA 33 NA
2005-2009 AYP2005-2009 AYP
Total
Black Hispanic
White Asian
American Indian ELL
Eco. Disadv. SWDhttp://ossip.dadeschools.net/
2008-09 One Year at a Glance
Performance and Content Cluster Analysis by Grade
FCAT
Mar. 2008 Sept. 2008
BaselineAssessment
Oct. 2008 Jan. 2009
District InterimAssessment
Mar. 2009
FCAT
http://ossip.dadeschools.net/
2008-09 One Year at a Glance2008-09 One Year at a Glance
Reading, Grade 3
School Grade AYP
Reading, Grade 4
Reading, Grade 5
Science, Grade 5
Math, Grade 3
Math, Grade 4
Math, Grade 5
http://ossip.dadeschools.net/
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)
SSS Math Benchmarks and Content Focus
2008 2009
http
://o
ssip
.dad
esch
ools
.net
/
Benchmark Analysis Reports
• Benchmark Analysis of the District Interim Assessmentshttp://curriculum.dadeschools.net/
FCAT Mathematics
Content Focus
Assessment Results
http://fcat.fldoe.org/fcatpub2.asp
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?
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?
Essential Questions
Questions
Do you know why you are getting the results you get?
Do you know why you are NOT getting the results you want?
Questions
What would your school be like if your school was achieving its goals and expectations for student learning?
Building the Bridge Between Data and Results
Instructional Improvement
Frequent Data Use
Structured Collaboration
Leadership & Capacity
School Culture/Equity