1 / 29

DATA Project: Using Data to make decisions Edl 630a

DATA Project: Using Data to make decisions Edl 630a. Holly Cronin. A B urning Q uestion…. Does the special education subgroup fail to meet AYP in Elementary School X?

lucia
Download Presentation

DATA Project: Using Data to make decisions Edl 630a

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. DATA Project:Using Data to make decisionsEdl 630a Holly Cronin

  2. A Burning Question… • Does the special education subgroup fail to meet AYP in Elementary School X? • If so, by what percentage could a district increase the proficiency of special education students in order to meet AYP in anyone one of the four ways? • Is there a correlation between the performance of special education students in reading and math?

  3. Research of Burning Question: Important of AYP • “No Child Left Behind requires that each state establish an accountability plan calling for all students to meet required levels of academic performance by the 2013-2014 school year” (Sorrentino and Zirkel, 2004). • “Schools must show they are making ‘adequate yearly progress,’ (AYP), toward the goal of all students achieving proficiencyin mathematics and reading/language arts by the year 2014” (Choi, 2007).

  4. Research of Burning Question:Conflicting Message of AYP • “Most accountability tests end up measuring what students bring to school, not what they learn once they arrive” (Popham, 2010). • “Some schools that failed to meet AYP who were making exceptional progress, relative to the district, for their average and above-average initial status students. These successes were masked by their AYP designation” (Choi, 2007).

  5. Research of Burning Question:Moving Forward • “Schools already constrained by limited resources…will have to develop innovative strategies to meet the conflicting mandates of NCLB, IDEA, and 504” (Sorrentino and Zirkel, 2004). • School districts need resources to develop these innovate strategies.

  6. DATA

  7. What data can we use to answer these questions? • A look at the history of one school’s (referred to as Elementary School X) subgroups’ performance. • AYP projected percentages for current 6th Grade Students (based on their 5th grade data). • A closer look into the performance of students in a the special education subgroup. • A correlation between reading and math performance.

  8. DATA: History of Subgroup’s Performance History of Subgroup’s Percent Proficient or Above at Elementary School X in Reading and Math from the 2006-2011 school years.

  9. Elementary School X: AYP Results from 2011-2012

  10. AYP Projected Percentages

  11. Projected Percentages to Meet AYPin 6th Grade Math/Reading There are 4 ways that a school can reach AYP 1. Meet Expectations: Reaching Target Proficient Percentage 2. 2-Year Average 3. Safe Harbor:10% or greater reduction in Non- Proficient 4. Growth Calculation • Reading 40% of 27 students = 11 students. Meaning at least 16 students need to reach proficient Math 60% of 27 students = 16 students. Meaning at least 11 students need to reach proficient.

  12. Projected Percentages to Meet AYPin 6th Grade Math/Reading Reading Math • The percentage of proficient special education students currently in 6th grade is 50%. In order to meet AYP based on… • Meeting Expectations: needs to increase by30.5% to reach target of 85.5% • Safe Harbor: 40% of 27 students can be non-proficient so that means at least 16 students need to reach proficient. • The percentage of proficient special education students currently in 6th grade is 29.2%. In order to meet AYP based on… • Meeting Expectations: needs to increase by 43.9% to reach target of 73.1% • Safe Harbor: 60% of 27 students can be non-proficient. That means at least 11 students need to reach proficient.

  13. Special Education Subgroup Performance Reading Standards Math Standards • Informational Text • Literary Text • Reading Process • Acquisition of Vocabulary • Number Sense • Geometry and Spatial Sense • Measurement • Patterns, Functions and Algebra • Data Analysis and Probability

  14. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

  15. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

  16. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

  17. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Reading

  18. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

  19. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

  20. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

  21. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

  22. Special Education Subgroup Performance: Math

  23. Reading and Math Correlation

  24. Integrating Reading and Math • “By taking advantage of some natural parallels between reading and mathematics, teachers can enhance students’ learning of individual content areas and their ability to make generalizations across them” (Halladay & Neumann, 2012). • One of those parallels is comprehension strategies: “We want students to make predictions, monitor understanding, determine importance, and make connections” (Halladay & Neumann, 2012).

  25. Integrating Reading and MathCommon Language Comprehension Strategies Problem Solving Skills • Metacognition • Schema • Determining Importance • Inferences • Connections • Synthesis • Monitor Understanding throughout the problem. • Have you seen a problem like this before? • What information do you need to solve the problem? • Predictions for answers. • Apply problem to real-world • Does your answer make sense?

  26. Critiques of Integrating Content Areas • If a common language is not in place this may confuse students when trying to integrate the subjects. • There are “some concerns about too much integration” (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009). It is important that teachers work together in order to create a comprehensive integrated unit. There have often been units that were poorly designed and loosely connected (Glatthorn & Jailall, 2009). • In order to prevent “poorly designed and loosely connected” units, collaboration amongst teachers becomes critical.

  27. Conclusions • Special Education students historically struggle to meet AYP at Elementary School X. • Meeting AYP by the Safe Harbor expectation is the most probable way for Elementary School X to meet AYP. • There is a correlation between reading and math scores • 43% of the math scores can be predicted based on their reading scores

  28. Next Steps… • What percentage do the other grade levels need to shoot for in order to meet AYP? • Do the teachers need to alter their curriculum maps based on their special education students’ breakdown of standards? • More time on units compared to others? • Resources needed to meet the needs of that unit? • Who do the teachers need to collaborate with in order to create more integrated math and reading classrooms? • What resources do they need to have these conversations?

  29. Citations Choi, K. (2007). Children Left Behind in AYP and Non-AYP Schools: Using Student Progress and the Distribution of Student Gains to Validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, p. 21-32 Glatthorn, A. A., & Jailall, J. M. (2009). The Principal as Curriculum Leader: Shaping what is Taught and Tested. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press. Halladay, J. L., & Neumann, M. D. (2012). Connecting Reading and Mathematical Strategies. The Reading Teacher, 471-476. Measure Up Ohio. Retrieved on November 5, 2012. http://measureup.edresourcesohio.org/ayp.php Popham, J.W. (2010). Everything School Leaders Need to Know About Assessment. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Sorrentino, A., & Zirkel, P. (2004). Is NCLB Leaving Special Education Students Behind? National Association of Elementary School Principals, p26-29

More Related