Appx E_PPT Data Assmnt 7-18-12

7/30/2019 Appx E_PPT Data Assmnt 7-18-12

1/19

Photos by Susie Fitzhugh

Seattles Investments in Performance Management,

Assessment, and Academic Data Systems


2/19

OverviewEric Anderson, Research, Evaluation, & Assessment

Executive Director of Schools PerspectiveBree Dusseault, Southeast Region

School Leader PerspectiveKatie Pearl, Principal, B.F. Day Elementary

Christy Collins, Principal, Arbor Heights Elementary

Questions & Discussion

2

Agenda


3/19

3

5-Year Strategic Plan (2008-2013)

DistrictStrategic

Plan specified the

goals, infrastructure,

and roadmap for SPS

to fulfill its academicvision for all

students


4/19

Vision of Vertically Aligned Goals

4

Goal setting cascades downthrough the organization

DISTRICT

SCHOOL

CLASSROOM

Level

Planning

& Goal-Setting

Analysis &

Reporting

DISTRICT Strategic Plan District Scorecard

SCHOOL Online CSIPSchool Reports

Segmentation

CLASSROOM SMART Goals Student Growth

Each level has tools for planning,

progress monitoring and reporting


5/19

PLAN

Specify goals and focusareas based on data

IMPLEMENT

Instructional strategies andprofessional development

MONITOR PROGRESS

Interim assessments andprogress monitoring tools

ADJUST/RESPOND

Interim curricular planning,regrouping, interventions

REPORT

Summative performanceanalysis and data reports

Performance Management Cycle

5


6/19

6

District Academic Scorecard

District Scorecard

released each Fall

Summarizes academic

data aligned to the

Strategic Plan

Shows growth from

baseline year (2007-08)

and whether the

District is on track tomeet its 2013 goals


7/19

Annual School Reports

7

School Reportsreleased each Fall

Summarize three

years of academic

data aligned to the

Strategic Plan

Summarize results

from climate surveys

Provide information

on strategies and

focus areas for

improvement


8/19

School Segmentation

Schools levels defined

each year by status and

growth performance

metrics aligned to

Strategic PlanPurpose is to monitor

progress toward 2013

goals and customize

levels of support and

autonomy

SCHOOL LEVELS

LEVEL 5

LEVEL 4

LEVEL 3

LEVEL 2

LEVEL 1

Level 4-5 Schools are near

or above the 2013 district-

wide target goals

Level 1-2 Schools remain far

below the 2013 goals and

are not making significant

annual growth/progress

8


9/19

9

Martin Luther King Jr ES

Hawthorne ES

Bailey Gatzert ES

Highland Park ES

Madrona K8

Emerson ES

Dunlap ES

B.F. Day ESGraham Hill ES

Beacon Hill ES

Broadview-Thomson K8

Concord ES

John Muir ES

Sanislo ES

Gatewood ES

Rainier Beach HS

Nova HS

Northgate ES

Roxhill ES

West Seattle ES

Leschi ES

Aki Kurose MS

Olympic Hills ES

Dearborn Park ES

Van Asselt ES

Orca K8

Pinehurst K8

Denny MS

Jane Addams K8

Wing Luke ES

South Shore K8

Arbor Heights ES

John Rogers ES

Kimball ES

Adams ES

Pathfinder K8

Madison MS

Washington MS

Alki ES

Greenwood ES

Olympic View ES

TOPS K8

Cleveland HS

Chief Sealth HS

West Seattle HS

Franklin HS

Ingraham HS

DISTRICT

McClure MS

Thornton Creek ES

Salmon Bay K8

Mercer MS

Green Lake ES

Maple ES

Schmitz Park ESBagley ES

Catharine Blaine K8

Bryant ES

North Beach ES

West Woodland ES

McGilvra ES

Loyal Heights ESJohn Hay ES

Wedgwood ES

Whittier ES

Ballard HS

The Center Sch. HS

Thurgood Marshall ES

Stevens ES

Sacajawea ES

Whitman MS

Eckstein MS

Hamilton MS

Lafayette ES

Lowell ES

Montlake ES

Frantz Coe ES

Lawton ES

View Ridge ES

Laurelhurst ES

John Stanford ES

Garfield HS

Roosevelt HS

Nathan Hale HS

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GrowthScore

Absolute/Status Score

Absolute Score Segment Other Criteria Segment

Low (0-30) Level 1 High Growth Level 3

Med-Low (30-59) Level 2 High Growth Level 3

Med-High (60-79) Level 3

High (80-100) Level 4 FRL gap < 25% Level 5


10/19

10

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GrowthPerformanc

eIndex

Absolute Performance Index

Dearborn Park Elementary (3-Year History)

Charting School Progress Over Time

Rising Absolute Performance over time

Performance metrics

(the goalposts) are

fixed for the duration

of the 5-year plan so

that progress can be

charted over time


11/19

School Levels by Year

Percentage ofLevel 1

schools has declined

from 20% to 9%

Percentage ofLevel 5

schools has increased

from 15% to 24%

20%16% 9%

21%

17%

13%

28%

33%

35%

16% 20%

19%

15% 15%24%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2008-09 2009-10 2010-11

Level 5

Level 4

Level 3

Level 2

Level 1


12/19

Online CSIP Tool

12

Web-based Continuous School Improvement Plan (CSIP) tool was

developed to help schools specify goals, measures, and strategies


13/19

Academic Data Warehouse

13

The Academic Data Warehouse (ADW) is a web-based tool that

provides stakeholders with on-demand access to data reports

Currently includes enrollment, attendance, MAP, and coursework.

13


14/19

14

MAP Benchmark Assessment

MAP is a nationally-normed assessment given district-wide in reading

and math up to 3x per year. School and classroom data reports are

available from the ADW or directly from the test vendor (NWEA).


15/19

15

Student Progress Reports (MAP)

Schools and families

provided Individual

Progress Reports for

each student

Similar data is

available online via

the SOURCE, which

families and school

staff can access


16/19

16

Student Growth Ratings for Teachers

Test: MSP

Grade Last Name First Name Actual Score Predicted Score Difference

7 Akers Chris 410 400 10 95

8 Greybeal Alex 512 520 -8 16

8 Johnson Erik 380 383 -3 45

7 Jordan Stephnie 428 427 1 67

8 Parton Angelica 415 412 3 68

7 Portman Molly 356 350 6 85

7 Robinson Jeffery 430 432 -2 48

7 Roche David 322 320 2 55

7 Rollings Samatha 342 346 -4 33

Point Summary

Total Difference 5

Point Equivalent 59/100

Median SSGP 55

Point Equivalent 65/100

SSGP

Beginning next fall, certain teachers will receive a summary report

of student growth on common assessments. Overall growth

averaged over two years is classified as Low, Typical, or High.

(Not actual student names)

PROTOTYPEFor Il lustrat ive Purpo ses Only


17/19

2013 & Beyond

17

Strategic Plan

Segmentation

Academic Data Warehouse

Assessments Possible Refinements for Next Generation

Community/Stakeholder Input on Targets

More Transparent Methodology

Clear Focus on Achievement GapRobust College Readiness Metrics

Common Core Aligned Systems of Assessments

Timely, Relevant, & Accessible Data (ADW 2.0)


18/19

PLAN

Specify goals and focusareas based on data

IMPLEMENT

Instructional strategiesand professional

development

MONITOR PROGRESS

Interim assessments andprogress monitoring tools

ADJUST/RESPOND

Interim curricularplanning, regrouping,

interventions

REPORT

Summative performance

analysis and data reports

Systems of Assessments

18

Summative tests (e.g., MSP)

Normed global outcomes

benchmarks (e.g., MAP)

Interim standards-based tests

aligned to curriculum map

Screeners/diagnostic tools to

identify needs (e.g., SRI)

Frequent progress monitoringintervention tools (e.g., DIBELS)


19/19

Focus Areas for 2012-13

19

Multi-Tier System of Supports & Data-Driven Instruction

Intentional instruction aligned to an explicit standards-

based curriculum map (WA state, CCSS)

Interim assessments aligned to the curriculum map

Centrally-coordinated and supported interventions,

screeners, and progress monitoring tools

Teacher & Principal Evaluation

Calibration, inter-rater reliability of evaluation rubrics

Student growth measures

Appx E_PPT Data Assmnt 7-18-12

Documents

Transcript of Appx E_PPT Data Assmnt 7-18-12