DEVELOPING A DATA-CENTERED CULTUREPope Elementary

2007 - 2014

TODAY’S EXPECTED OUTCOMESAwareness of the historical evolution of the Pope staff in using data to improve instruction and learning

Understand how we have connected TPEP student growth goals, RTI, and the CSIP process

Tips, templates, and lessons learned that might be useful as you prepare to lead a staff in the use of data

THE EARLY YEARS WASL/MSP Data Review Each Fall

Used to set generic yearlong CSIP goals

Grade Level teams met informally; pre-referral team met as needed

Focus was on what was taught vs. what was learned

We were are hard working, follow the curriculum with fidelity focused staff

ALONG CAME THE CONCEPT OF A PLC Focus and conversations began to shift from what was taught to what students had learned

Grade level teams began to see the need to meet more formally-Used the 4 essential questions of a PLC as a basis for many conversations

Introduction of building-wide Screening Assessments—DIBELS, Writing Assessments, Math Screeners

Held Grade Level Data Review meetings 3 times/year—Admin provided data

Helped begin to put student names with assessment scores– Most conversations were around identifying tier 2 and tier 3 students.

Introduction of an “Intervention Block”—big focus on logistics at first

IMPROVING OUR PLC’S—AYP PRESSURE Teams started working to develop a clearer understanding of what we

wanted students to learn

Began using common formative and summative assessments to measure their students learning

Set grade level SMART goals each trimester in Reading, Math, and Writing

Continued with data review meetings 3x/year—grade level teams began to bring their own data; conversations facilitated less by

2013 – 2014 SCHOOL YEAR Teams met weekly—still some coordination, increasing amounts of collaboration

Principal, Counselor, Psych, LAP, and Resource met with each grade level team every 7 weeks on a rotating basis

Teams provided data to summarize progress of students, identify areas of success and concern, and facilitated discussion around changes to intervention and instructional support plan.

Year long SMART goals set by teams in one subject area Interim 7-week SMART goals set by teams

STUDENT GROWTH GOALSPope Elementary

2013 - 2014

SELECTING A FOCUS AND ESTABLISHING A BASELINE

2012 – 2013 MSP-Math 63.4% of 3rd – 6th Graders met standard

September Math Comp Screener 67% of 2nd – 6th Graders met standard

October Math Comp Assessment 56.2% of 2nd – 6th Graders

SETTING A GOAL (CRITERION 3.5)Focus: Increase our students’ math computational fluency

Measures: September Math Computation Screener

Monthly Computational Fluency Assessment (MBSP)

STUDENT GROWTH SMART GOAL (3.5)2nd – 6th Graders will improve their math computational fluency from 67% meeting standard (265/396) on the September Computation Screener to at least 82% meeting standard when this same assessment is administered in late April.

2nd – 6th Graders will improve their math computational fluency from 56.2% meeting standard on the October Computational Fluency Assessment to at least 71.2% meeting standard on the April Computational Fluency Assessment.

CHOOSING A GRADE LEVEL (5.5)3rd Grade-- All Teachers were on the Comprehensive Evaluation

3rd Grade student data was similar to the school-wide data

Wrote a “nested” SMART Goal

My 5.5 goal was the same as their 8.1

STUDENT GROWTH SMART GOAL (5.5)3rd Graders will improve their math computational fluency from 67% meeting standard (63/94) on the September Computation Screener to at least 88% meeting standard when this same assessment is administered in late April.

3rd Graders will improve their math computational fluency from 56.3% meeting standard on the October Computational Fluency Assessment to at least 83% meeting standard on the April Computational Fluency Assessment.

CHOOSING A SUB GROUP (8.3) Focused on students not meeting standard on either or both of the selected

measures

Focused on student movement between levels

Teacher’s 3.1 goals were nested in my 8.3 goal

STUDENT GROWTH GOAL (8.3)90% of 3rd graders (31 students) scoring at level 1 or 2 on the September screener will increase by at least one proficiency level when this same assessment is administered in late April.

81% of 3rd graders scoring at level 1 or 2 (34/42) on the October Computational Fluency Assessment will improve by at least one proficiency level on the Computational Fluency Assessment in April.

TEACHER RESPONSIBILITIES Administer monthly assessments during designated windows

Enter data in spreadsheets on shared drive before the end of the month

Share results with students

Set and monitor class goals with students

Celebrate growth and adjust goals as needed

Communicate class goals and progress with families

PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITIES Ensure all teachers had necessary assessment materials

Provide spreadsheets for data entry

Calculate percentages for each grade level and the school

Share data with teachers and students frequently

THE RESULTS3.5September Computation Screener: 93.5% (374/400) of 2nd – 6th grade students met standard on the screener in April. (Goal was 82%)

Monthly Computation Assessment: 77.3% (309/400) of 2nd – 6th grade students met standard on the monthly assessment in April. (Goal was 71.2%)

  September January April

Number Tested

 396

 401

 400

 Level 4

(#)%

(173)43.7%

  

 (301)75.1%

 (339)84.8%

Level 3(#)%

 (92)

23.2%  

 (50)

12.5%

 (35)8.8%

% Mtg Standard

67%  87.5% 93.5%

Level 2(#)%

(62)15.7%

 (32)8%

 (10)2.5%

Level 1(#)%

  (69)

17.4%

 (18)4.5%

(16)4%

% NOT Mtg

Standard

33% 12.5% 6.5%

September Screener

  October January AprilNumber Tested  

395 

403 

400

Level 4(#)%

 (135)34.2%

 

 (215)53.3%

 (194)48.5%

Level 3(#)%

 (87)22%

 

 (81)

20.1%

 (115)28.8%

% Mtg Standard 56.2% 73.4% 77.3%

Level 2(#)%

 (75)19%

 

 (45)

11.2%

 (50)

12.5%

Level 1(#)%

 (98)

24.9% 

 (62)

15.4%

 (41)

10.3%

% NOT Mtg St. 43.8% 26.6% 22.8%

Monthly Computation Assessment

THE RESULTS5.5September Computation Screener: 94.9% (63/94) of 3rd grade students met standard on the screener in April. (Goal was 88%)

Monthly Computation Assessment: 87.6% of 3rd grade students met standard on the monthly assessment in April. (Goal was 83%)

THE RESULTS8.3September Computation Screener: 96.8% (30/31) of 3rd grade students scoring at level 1 or 2 on the September screener increased by at least one proficiency level on the screener in April. (Goal was 90%)

Monthly Computation Assessment: 85% of 3rd grade students scoring at level 1 or 2 in October increased by at least one proficiency level in April. (Goal was 81%)

WHAT WORKED Collective Responsibility

My student growth goals served as our Math CSIP goals

Grade level, Nested, Aligned goals—Focus

Frequent monitoring and analysis of growth data

Setting incremental short term goals (Grade level, Class Level, Individual Level)

Sharing of data and progress—staff meetings, CSIP, grade levels, assemblies

LESSONS LEARNED It’s really hard to argue with clearly presented and analyzed data

It can provide the impetus for change with students, staff, and parents

Look for examples of data in all aspects of your school—attendance, behavior, parent involvement, student achievement, etc.

Make an effort to frequently include data as part of conversations and in all decision making.

When you ask the question, “Is it working?” Follow up with “How do you know?”

Assessment, Data, goal setting, instruction, assessment, collaboration, intervention/enrichment, Assessment—All interdependent—It’s unlikely you will see the growth you hope to see in your students if you don’t have all of these elements.

Make data public!—Share with staff, students, parents, and the community

LESSONS LEARNEDYou have to be willing to dedicate time and resources to ensure data analysis, goal setting, and collaborative planning are taking place

When you’re just getting started, compile and provide the data—look for ways to transfer responsibilities and ownership to teachers

We’re still working on---candor, courage to hold teammates accountable for the betterment of the team

QUESTIONS?