Criterion3

THE USE OF DATA TO INFORM INSTRUCTION AND AS AN ARTIFACT FOR PRINCIPAL EVALUATION

Unpacking Criterion 3

CRITERION 3

Element 3.1: Recognizes and seeks out multiple data sources

Element 3.2 Analyzes and interprets multiple data sources to inform school-level improvement efforts

Element 3.3: Implements data driven plan for improved teaching and learning

Element 3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning

Context: Everett High School

DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES

Everett HS 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Change per Year (student

s)

Enrollment 1714 1672 1619 1565 1489 1424 -59

for the school year ending: 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Eve

rett

HS

Eve

rett

HS

Eve

rett

HS

Eve

rett

HS

Eve

rett

HS

Eve

rett

HS

Change per Year

(in percenta

ge points)American Indian 2.3% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.9% 2.0% -0.05

Asian 6.3% 7.5% 7.7% 7.5% 8.7% 8.1% 0.35

Black 3.7% 4.2% 4.9% 5.1% 5.2% 5.4% 0.33

Hispanic 10.0% 11.3% 11.6% 12.0% 13.3% 13.9% 0.74

White 75.6% 73.0% 71.3% 70.6% 69.4% 68.7% -1.31

Free-Reduced Meal Eligible 35.7% 34.5% 37.7% 40.0% 45.2% 46.7% 2.55

Special Education 11.1% 8.7% 9.1% 9.5% 10.5% 10.9% 0.14

Transitional Bilingual 6.7% 6.5% 6.0% 5.9% 7.5% 6.8% 0.10

Migrant 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00

On-Time Graduation Rate 77.7% 77.5% 74.2% 85.8% 80.8% 82.1% 1.24

CEE DATA

-20.00%

-15.00%

-10.00%

-5.00%

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Impr

ovem

ent:

3-Y

ear T

rend

Performance: Reading-Math Proficiency 2011

Improvement vs Performance: High Schools- 2011(N=308)

State of WA

Everett PS

Everett High School

LEADINGGAINING

LAGGING SLIPPING

Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc., 2011

Comparison Schools

ELEMENT 3.1: RECOGNIZES AND SEEKS OUT MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES

AWSP Leadership Framework Planning with Data

PERCEPTUAL DATA STAFF- 2012

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Collaboration and Communication

Clear and Shared Focus

High Standards and Expectations

Effective Leadership

Supportive Learning Environment

Parent and Community Involvement

Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment

Monitoring of Teaching and Learning

Focused Professional Development

Cultural Responsiveness

District Support for Improvement

Comparison with High-Performing Schools

Everett HS High Performing (Top 20%) at Your Level

Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

STAFF PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%


Clear and Shared Focus




Parent and Community Involvement



Focused Professional Development

Cultural Responsiveness

District Support for Improvement

Comparison Perspective: Percent Positive

Nov 2012 Nov 2011 Nov 2010

Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.Copyright © 2003-2012, the Center for Educational Effectiveness, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

RESISTANCE FACTOR, CHANGE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

52%

7%

41%

46%

2%

33%

0%

7%

0%

4%

5%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I welcome new ideas and change

My colleagues welcome new ideas and change

Openness to New Ideas


40%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GAP: "I" vs. "They"

78%

27%

20%

41%

0%

24%

0%

5%

0%

0%

2%

4%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am willing to work at changing my school for the better

My colleagues are willing to work at changing this school for the better

Willingness to Work at Change


29%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GAP: "I" vs. "They"

31%

9%

36%

34%

15%

32%

0%

7%

2%

5%

15%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

I am willing to be held accountable for student learning

My colleagues are willing to be held accountable for student learning

Willingness to Be Held Accountable


24%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

GAP: "I" vs. "They"

16%

19%

44%

STUDENT PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Clear and Shared Focus




Community and Parent Involvement




Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010


PARENT PERCEPTIONS LONGITUDINAL

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%Clear and Shared Focus




Community and Parent Involvement





Nov-2012 Nov-2011 Nov-2010


ACHIEVEMENT INDEX

School Year 2011-2012

OUTCOMES

AverageINDICATORS Reading Writing Math ScienceExt Grad

Rate

Achievement of non-low income students

7 7 6 6 5 6.20

Achievement of low income students

4 5 4 3 3 3.80

Achievement vs. peers 5 4 4 7 4 4.80

Improvement from the previous year

4 4 5 7 4 4.80

Index Scores5.00 5.00 4.75 5.75 4.00

4.90

Good

2011-12 Achievement Gap

Reading MathExt Graduation

Rate

AverageINDICATORS

Met Std

Peers ImpMet Std

Peers ImpMet Std

Peers Imp

Achievement of Black, Pacific Islander, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic stds

4 5 7 4 5 7 2 2 1 4.11

Achievement of white and Asian students

6 5 4 5 3 5 5 4 4 4.56

Achievement Gap 0.45

LIMITED ENGLISH (ELL) STUDENTSNUMBER OF STUDENTS TESTED

BuildingNumber of

ELL Students Tested

Cascade HS 71Cedar Wood 17Eisenhower MS 40Emerson Elem 152Everett HS 101Evergreen MS 79Forest View Elem 35Garfield Elem 55Gateway MS 4Hawthorne Elem 229Heatherwood MS 26Henry M. Jackson HS 31Jackson Elem 35Jefferson 94Lowell 81Madison 128Mill Creek 41Monroe 61North MS 78Penny Creek 57Sequoia HS 12Silver Firs 40Silver Lake 92View Ridge 55Whittier 28Woodside 93Everett Average: Elems 76Everett Average: MS 45Everett Average: HS 54

101

71

17

40

152

79

35

55

4

229

26

31

35

94

81

128

41

61

78

57

12

40

92

55

28

93

0 50 100 150 200 250

Everett HS

Cascade HS

Cedar Wood

Eisenhower MS

Emerson Elem

Evergreen MS

Forest View Elem

Garfield Elem

Gateway MS

Hawthorne Elem

Heatherwood MS

Henry M. Jackson HS

Jackson Elem

Jefferson

Lowell

Madison

Mill Creek

Monroe

North MS

Penny Creek

Sequoia HS

Silver Firs

Silver Lake

View Ridge

Whittier

Woodside

English Language Acquisition: Number of StudentsNumber of Students Tested on WELPA

ELL STUDENTS REACHING PROFICIENCY AMAO - 2

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0

Everett HS

Cascade HS

Cedar Wood

Eisenhower MS

Emerson Elem

Evergreen MS

Forest View Elem

Garfield Elem

Gateway MS

Hawthorne Elem

Heatherwood MS

Henry M. Jackson HS

Jackson Elem

Jefferson

Lowell

Madison

Mill Creek

Monroe

North MS

Penny Creek

Sequoia HS

Silver Firs

Silver Lake

View Ridge

Whittier

Woodside

English Language Acquisition: TransitioningPercent of Students Transitioning (AMAO-2)

Transitioning= Student scoring at Level-4 and Transtioning out of ELL Services

AMAO-2 Target: 7.1% of students transitioning

2012 State Result: 11.4%

The percentage on this chart represents the percent of students who demonstrated English language proficiency by scoring a Level-4 on the WELPA assessment.

Requires a minimum N of 20 students.

101Everett HS: Total number of ELL students tested in 2012

(used in AMAO-2)

10TH GRADE READING7

8.2

%

83

.9%

84

.6%

75

.3%

81

.6%

77

.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Reading: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard

Everett HS Everett PS State

Copyright © Center for Educational Effectiveness, 2012. Reprint rights granted for non-commercial use.

-14% -18% -24%-14% -9% -10%

-10%-16%

-17%

-10%-7% -11%

26% 30% 30% 24% 23% 20%

44%27% 19%

52% 58% 57%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Reading: Percent of Students by Level

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Reading: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard

Native American

Asian American

African American

Hispanic

White

District-All Students


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Reading: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard

Special Needs

ESL/ELL/Bilingual

Free/Reduced Meal Eligible

Migrant



8TH TO 10TH GRADE READING GROWTH

-18% -10%

-11%-7%

30% 23%

41% 61%

8th Grade (2009) 10th Grade (2011)

Reading: 8th to 10th Grade

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%

-14% -9%

-12%-11%

24% 20%

50% 60%

8th Grade (2010) 10th Grade (2012)

Reading: 8th to 10th Grade

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%

10TH GRADE WRITING8

1.2

%

86

.8%

87

.5%

83

.4%

82

.2%

79

.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Writing: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard



-13% -21% -22%-6% -7% -12%

-7%-10% -9%

-4% -5%-5%

38% 36% 39%28%

37% 34%

37%22% 15%

56% 45% 46%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Writing: Percent of Students by Level

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Writing: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard

Native American

Asian American

African American

Hispanic

White



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 Writing: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard

Special Needs

ESL/ELL/Bilingual


Migrant



GRADE 10 CRITICAL THINKING : COMPARISON OF SCHOOL TO STATE

-3.7 -5.1 -6.8

-50.0

-25.0

0.0

25.0

50.0

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12

Difference Between School and State Percents

Everett HighSchool

District State

% 78.7 85.0 85.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

% w

ith

sim

ilar

per

form

ance

Reading - Critical Thinking

STUDENT SELF-ASSESSMENT

STUDENT SELF-REFLECTION

DISCIPLINE DATA

Element 3.1: Recognizes and seeks out multiple data sources

What other data sources do you suggest?

TABLE TALK

3.2 ANALYZES AND INTERPRETS MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES TO INFORM SCHOOL-LEVEL IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS


8-STEP MODEL

• Summative Assessment

• Instructional Calendars

• Academic Groupings

• ALC Meetings

• Teach Instructional Focus from Calendar

• Effective Teaching Strategies

• Summative and Formative Assessment

• Review Concepts

• Test Talks

• ALC Meetings

• Academic Groupings

• Re-teaching

• Enrichment

• Test Talks

• ALC Meetings

Successes: • Common core activities• Common formative assessments• Common learning targets

PLAN: COMMON CALENDARNext Steps:

• Increasing frequency of formative assessments and common learning targets

10TH GRADE SCIENCE – BIO EOC

69

.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 EOC-BIology: Percentage of Students Meeting Standard



-17%

-10%

32%

37%

2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Percent of Students by Level

20%

40%

60%

80%

MeetingStandard

100%


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Ethnic Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard

Native American

Asian American

African American

Hispanic

White


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 2012 2013

Grade 10 EOC-Biology: Program Achievement Gap% of Students Meeting Standard

Special Needs

ESL/ELL/Bilingual


Migrant


381 sophomores tested 74 students NOT in BIO (19.4%)

20 met standard* *16 had already passed the Biology class

54 did not meet standard

EHS FINCs Semester 1 SY 2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Students Total

FINC Total

American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005

FINC RATES

COORDINATED SCIENCEACADEMIC INTERVENTIONS

Physics unit assessments sorted by standards

Target student content strengths and weaknesses

Building a Championship Culture

STUDENT ENGAGEMENT

Successful turnout for after school review sessions.

• connect-Ed message• teacher contact• meeting w/ success

coordinator

Hands-on experiences and demonstrations as standard is re-taught

EHS FINCs Semester 1 SY 2013

1 2 3 4 5 6 7Students Total

FINC Total

American Indian or Alaskan Native 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 7 14Asian 11 3 2 2 0 1 0 19 37Black or African American 13 2 5 1 2 2 0 25 58Hispanic or Latino 38 16 21 10 7 5 0 97 238Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 8 23Two or More Races 8 0 3 2 1 0 0 14 30White 111 61 41 22 13 16 0 264 605Grand Total 187 84 75 39 25 24 0 434 1005

520 1284

FINC RATES

SCREENSHOT FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDENT

• Biology, district-wide, common assessment used for 1st semester final

• Using data to target weaknesses prior to EOC in spring

BIOLOGY END OF COURSE ASSESSMENT PREP

screenshot of classroom results

– Algebra 2 teachers with administrator

– Informing instructional decisions for next year and current year

– Led to discussion on grading

PLAN: DATA TALKS

– Discussion of common grading of the subject, and assessments

– Rotating weekly – Creating an ELL version of the final in

Algebra 1– Integration of GLAD strategies into

lessons and activities

PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME

PLAN: COLLEGIAL TIME– Creating manipulative and graphic organizers for student use– Creating of common formative and summative assessments in

Algebra 1, Geometry,Algebra 2 and Pre-calculus.

Analyzes and interprets multiple data sources to inform school-level improvement efforts

What other methods do you suggest that support teachers in the analysis and interpretation of multiple data sources?

TABLE TALK

3.3: IMPLEMENTS DATA DRIVEN PLAN FOR IMPROVED TEACHING AND LEARNING


AMO TARGETS

SIP CYCLE

MSP/HSPE Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): 74.8 percent of students will meet standard in Mathematics as measured by MSP/HSPE.

AMO Target: 63.9%of the Continuously Enrolled (CE)* Low Income

students will meet standard in

mathematics

as measured by MSP/HSPE.

AMO Target: 50.8%of the Continuously Enrolled (CE)* Hispanic


mathematics


AMO Target: 34.8%of the Continuously Enrolled (CE)*

Special Education


mathematics


S.M.A.R.T. GOAL:

Increase the number of students passing Algebra 1 and Geometry by 5% as compared to 2011-2012 data.

SIP Actions Evidence of implementation

Person(s) Responsib

le

Resources

Needed

Timeline

Data on 3-5 EOC assessed math targets will be gathered and compiled through common assessments. A "Data Talk" conference will be held with the teacher and administrator to create a plan for getting each student to standard. (PDCA Step 1) (CSR Recommendation)

Teachers will have extensive data showing where each student is performing. The data is converted to an action plan and shared with the administrator.

Assistant PrincipalMath Teachers

Time for Math Teacher and Assistant Principal to meet

Data Talks held by 12/15, and 5/1

Algebra, Geometry and Algebra 2 teachers will design, develop, and implement instructional calendars for each target.(PDCA Steps 2 & 3)

Each teacher will have a clear understanding of the tested GLE's and how they align with the Common Core State Standards.

Math teachers

District developed instructional calendar

Common Work Time to further refine District calendar

Initial target calendar developed 9/12

Ongoing development of calendar

Implements data driven plan for improved teaching and learning

Relate this cycle for implementing a data driven plan to the process that occurs in your district. What recommendation or suggestion would you make?

TABLE TALK

3.4 ASSISTS STAFF TO USE DATA TO GUIDE, MODIFY AND IMPROVE CLASSROOM TEACHING AND LEARNING


Algebra 1 teachersmeet every Friday

Plan lessonsformative

assessmentactivities

so all classes doing the same

Adjust lessons based on studentsFormative

assessments

Create common summative

assessments

?Commentary Analysis

Evidence Concrete Details

BridgesTransitions

HooksAttention-grabber

Thesis Statement

Topic Sentence

Body Paragraph

Closing Sentence

Concluding Sentence

DO: Writing Instruction

DO: SCHAFFER TRAINING

DO: COMMON LANGUAGE

DO: COMMON PARAGRAPH STRUCTURES

DO: INTRODUCE COLOR CODING

Successes: – Backwards planning

Next Steps:– Adjust instruction based

on knowledge of leveling– Develop common district

assessments based on leveled standards

PLAN: LEVELING

Standard Question Level and Number

# questions

Assessment Weight (1pt/question)

ES2AUneven heating

Level 3 – 7 questions Level 2- 5 questions

12 30%

ES2BEnergy transfer

Level 4- 2 questions Level 3- 4 questionLevel 2- 8 question

14

35%

ES2CCarbon cycle

Level 4 – 1 questionLevel 3 – 1 questions Level 2 – 0 questions

2 5%

ES3BMethods of determining past climates

Level 3 - 1 questionLevel 2 – 1 question

2

5%

ES3DConstructingExplanationsPast Climates

Level 4 – 1 questionsLevel 3 – 5questionsLevel 2 – 4 questions

10

25%

Successes:– Incorporating AVID skills

Next Steps:– Refining assignments and

assessments

DO: CONTENT AREA READING

Successes:– Common district assessments on LMS

• Aligned to standards, improving validity and quality of test questions– Biology teacher attended OSPI EOC question writing/training session

CHECK

Next Steps:– Increase common

formative assessments among EHS classes

Successes:– Teaching reading strategies:

Marking the text and questions

ACT

Average Summative Assessment Scores, Biology

2011-2012

Summative Assessment

Average Score

Classification 69.85%

Cells 72.25%

DNA/Cell Cycle 64.05%

Protein Synthesis

67.9%

Genetics/Meiosis

64.45%

Semester 1 Final

68.4%

Evolution 76%

Photosynthesis 69.2%

Ecology 74.2%

Semester 2 Final

79%

Semester 2 Final Breakdown

Section of Final Average Score

Evolution 90%

Photosynthesis 75.75

Ecology 74.24%

3.4 Assists staff to use data to guide, modify and improve classroom teaching and learning

What other methods do you use to achieve this goal?

TABLE TALK

EVERETT HIGH IS A GOOD SCHOOL…..

on the path to EXEMPLARY status…through the use of data to inform instruction

Destination Everett

Criterion3

Documents

Transcript of Criterion3