8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

1/7

Name: Scott A. McKee December 15, 2012

EDU 515K-12 Data Driven Decision Making Project

In spring 2011, the School Improvement Team at your elementary school reviewed the year-end achievementdata and decided that something needed to be done about school-wide declining reading and math scores. Theyfocused on the third grade results because this is the grade in which state-wide assessments begin and they

wanted a starting point for future elementary school success.

The results showed that only 0! of the third grade students met or e"ceeded the state#s cut-off score for$proficient% in reading &Subgroup results' (hite - )!, *lac+-0!, ispanic - )!, ow S/S - !, / - !,S( - )0!3. In 4ath, only )! of the third grade students met or e"ceeded the state#s cut-off score for$proficient% in math &Subgroup results' (hite - 0!, *lac+ - 0!, ispanic - 2!, ow S/S - 5!, / - !,S( - 2!3.

Spring 2011 ! 6roficient

7eading 4ath

8ll rd9rade 0 )

(hite ) 0

*lac+ 0 0

ispanic ) 2ow S/S 5

/

S( )0 2

:our School Improvement Team consulted with national e"perts about the school-wide trend and selected a newinstructional program to implement to hopefully improve these results. *ecause your school is small, the newprogram would be implemented as a pilot in all rdgrade classrooms &only two classes' 12 in one, 1 in the other3.The team decided that if the spring 2012 results showed improvement in reading and math performance, then infall 2012 they would maintain the intervention in rdgrade and e"pand it to ; thgrade classes.

uring the summer of 2011, all rdgrade teachers were trained in the intervention and then participated in follow-

up training and implementation monitoring during the 2011-12 school year. It is now spring 2012 and as amember of the School Improvement Team you are ready to evaluate the year-end achievement results.

In determining whether the student met the cut-off

8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

2/7

e. :our recommendations for continuing the intervention in reading in >all 2012 with the rdgradeand your thoughts about e"pansion to ;thgrade classes.

2. :our summary(2-3 paragraphs)for the math intervention should addressa. The results and success of the intervention in math overallb. 8 comparison of the results to last year#s results in math overallc. The results and success of the intervention in math for each subgroup se(aratel'd. 8 comparison of the results to last year#s results in math for each subgroup se(aratel'

e. :our recommendations for continuing the intervention in math in >all 2012 with the rd

grade andyour thoughts about e"pansion to ;thgrade classes.

Please notethat the description of the intervention and actual implementation is intentionall' vag)e. (e arefocusing only on an analysis of the scores

8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

3/7

!able A"ea#$%g Ach$e&eme%t "es'lts

1. 8ll rd9rade Students

? @ 2)

4ean @ ;0;.;

S @ 22.

S/4 @ .1! 6assing ;!

Successful &:

8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

4/7

"ea#$%g S'mmar(lease beg$% o'r s'mmar here a%# co%t$%'e o% the %et page $* %ee#e#.)

Introduction'

8fter selection and implementation of our new instructional program for the 2011-2012 school year we finally havethe results of our year-end achievement assessment for reading and mathematics. The decision to implement ournew instructional program was an effort to improve our school-wide trend in declining reading and math scores on

state-wide assessments. *ased on comparative data from 2011 achievement testing our goal is to have an )!proficiency rate &passing rate3 for all rd graders, including subgroups for the 2012 achievement testing.epending on the success of these interventions, we will determine if we are to continue with these newinstructional programs into the 2012-201 school year and broaden them to our ; thgrade students as we try toimprove student proficiency in reading and mathematics.

7eading Summary'

The results of the 2012 achievement testing data analysis for reading, illustrates improvement on the overall rd

grade reading scores. owever, the success of the intervention of our new instructional program was not able tomeet our goal of an )! proficiency rate. The intervention showed an ;! proficiency rate, Eust 1! short of the)! goal for success of the new instructional programs. Ff the 2) students tested, 21 demonstrated a result ofproficient or better in reading &;!3. In comparison to the 2011 achievement testing with overall results of 0!

proficiency, an overall improvement of 1;! in 2012 demonstrates a mar+ed improvement in reading for our rd

grade classes.

The analysis of data also e"amined the results bro+en down into subgroupsG 7ace

8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

5/7

better for a subgroup proficiency rating of )!. The interventions in this subgroup were not successful atmeeting the goal but showed a mar+ed improvement of 2)! when compared to the 2011 data.

7ecommendations'

*ased on the analysis of the data from the spring 2012 8chievement Test data, even though we were short of ourgoal of an )! proficiency rate, I would recommend that we continue with the new instructional program and it#sinterventions for the 2012-201 school year in rdgrade and continuing with ; thgrade. The overall goal was only

missed by 1!, with a 1;! gain over 2011. 8lso, all subgroups showed mar+ed improvement and it would be ofvalue to give the interventions one more year to see if the improvement continues. It is possible that one schoolyear was not enough to establish the gains we were see+ing. owever, if at the end of the 2012-201 schoolyear, if the goals are not met for reading, I would recommend see+ing new intervention programs for reading inthe future to achieve our reading ! proficiency rate goals.

8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

6/7

!able +Mathemat$cs Ach$e&eme%t "es'lts

1. 8ll rd9rade Students

? @ 2)

4ean @ ;10.2

S @ 2;.2

S/4 @ 5.5! 6assing 0!

Successful &:

8/13/2019 EDU 515 K12 - DDDM Project - Guidelines McKee

7/7

Mathemat$cs S'mmar&6lease begin your summary here and continue on the ne"t page if needed.3

4athematics Summary'

The results of the 2012 achievement testing for mathematics illustrates a drastic decline in the overallperformance in rdgrade mathematics scores. The interventions appeared to show that the new instructionalprogram was not successful in meeting our goal of )! proficiency, as a result, math scores declined

significantly, only 1) of the 2) students tested scored proficient or better. The 2012 data &0! proficiency3 whencompared to the 2011 data &)! proficiency3 showed a decrease by 1)! over the course of one year, also 2)!short of our )! proficiency goal.

(hen the data was bro+en down by subgroupsG race