Two Recipes for Sustained Achievement Growth in Saint Paul
description
Transcript of Two Recipes for Sustained Achievement Growth in Saint Paul
Two Recipes for Sustained Achievement Growth in Saint Paul
Nancy Stachel and Michelle Odeen Como Park Elementary
Audrey Bridgeford, Sheila Kluxdal and Nancy Mambi Sheridan Elementary
Tom WatkinsResearch, Evaluation and Assessment Department
Intended Outcomes
An overview of the formative assessment systems in Como Park and Sheridan
Examples of how these systems inform instruction
Examples of how SPPS calculates achievement growth on the SAT10
How each school uses district and state summative data for continuous improvement
80%29%37%16%Caucasian
8%28%24%34%African American
5%12%12%9%Latino
5%29%27%39%Asian American
2%2%2%2%American Indian
14%17%12%17%Special Education
6%34%28%41%ELL
28%66%63%84%Free/Reduced Lunch
842,915 42,372 304 483 Total Enrollment
StateSaint PaulSheridan
Como Park
Demographic Comparisons – October 1, 2003
COMO PARK - Percent at Level II-B or Above on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment - Grades 3 and 5 Combined
61%
21%12%
34%
33%
37%
60%
22%
11%
24%
37%36%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (Corr)
Pe
rce
nt
at
Le
ve
l II
-B o
r A
bo
ve Math
Reading
Approximate AYP Index Target for Como
Como Park Elementary School Data Summary
Reading Math
Prof 03
MCA 01-03
MCA 00-02
SAT 02-03
MAT 01-02
Prof 03
MCA01-03
MCA00-02
SAT02-03
MAT 01-02
hihiSp.Ed
AavavhiavAavavavavELL
AavavhiavAhiavavavPov
AhihiavAhihihiCauc
AavhiavAavhiavAfAm
hihiHisp
AhiavhiavAhihiavavAsAm
AmIn
SHERIDAN - Percent at Level II-B or Above on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessment - Grades 3 and 5 Combined
58%
17%17%22%
38%
42%
60%
22%24%28%
41%43%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003(Corr)
Pe
rce
nt
at
Le
ve
l II
-B o
r A
bo
ve Math
Reading
Approximate AYP Index Target for Sheridan
Sheridan Elementary School Data Summary
Prof 03
MCA 01-03
MCA 00-02
SAT 02-03
MAT 01-02
Prof 03
MCA01-03
MCA00-02
SAT02-03
MAT 01-02
avavSp.Ed
AhihiavavAavhiavavELL
AhiavavavAhihihiavPov
AhihihiavAhiavCauc
avavhihiAfAm
hiavhiavHisp
AhihihiavAavhihiavAsAm
AmIn
Reading Math
Como Park Elementary
Nancy Stachel, Principal
Michelle Odeen, Technology Coordinator
3 Critical Questions (DuFour)
What is it that we expect students to learn?
How will we know when they have learned it?
How will we respond when they don’t learn?
Teachers’ mindset … what must we address
What does “data” mean?
Accountability vs. Reflection
Reflection is “the use of data for improvement.”
Conzemius and O’Neill
Shame and blame vs. Inquiry
Teachers’ mindset continued …
Usable data vs. just collecting dataStandardized assessments – examine trends
Use to address curricular or program concerns
Important to guide the process – identify expected outcomes for evaluating standardized assessment data
Data to inform daily instruction
Needs to be varied, fluid – designed to address the topic being evaluated
Data can be used to identify what isn’t working, but also to see what is working
Teachers’ mindset continued …
Data is an objective 3rd person
Moving from “Collaboration” to Professional Learning Communities
Professional Learning Communities require teachers to work together to develop their skills – this includes the ability to critique as well as praise
The real voyage in discovery consists not in seeking new landscapes, but in having new eyes.
Marcel Proust
Frequent Assessment Focus
Curriculum Based Measures– Fluency/1-minute reading-every 2 weeks– MAZE/cloze activity- Fall, Winter, Spring
Prevention Testing-Fall, Winter, Spring STAR Assessments-Fall, Winter, Spring
– Early Literacy-as requested by teacher
Accelerated Reader & Math-ongoing
Initial Assessments
Provide baseline data At-risk students are identified Academic goals are set & plans for
instruction developed
Instructional Plan Implemented
Intense small group instruction Individual re-teaching Student training on procedures and data
evaluation Subsequent assessments given
Is the student making adequate progress?
No YesC
ontinue current plan
until goal is reached
Move on
to other problem skills
Provide ch
allenge
Why not?
No accoun
tability-stu
dent/parent/teache
r Cu
rriculu
m or
instructional methods
Studen
t not en
gaged
Atten
dance
INTERVENE
Formal & Informal Use of Data
Creates cumulative data for student record Informs instruction for individual, small
group, & large group Teachers have a better sense of students’
academic strengths & needs
Supporting a Data Driven System
Staff development– Administering & scoring assessments– Interpreting data– Using data to inform instruction– Using technology to organize & present data
Technology Time
– Discuss data with colleagues– Review the value of assessments
Sheridan Elementary
Audrey Bridgeford, Principal
Nancy Mambi, Librarian
Sheila Kluxdal, 5th Grade Teacher
Assessment Instruction
Curriculum
Assessment SynergyTo inform: To inform:
• Public Accountability • Students• Teachers• Families
• Program• Planning
Leaders
Achievement
Standards
Assessment Literate
Teachers
Enabling Classroom
Targets
Periodic Standardized Testing
OngoingClassroomAssessment
School Data
SummativeAssessment
Data
FormativeData by GradeLevel/Content
Area
FormativeData by
Classroom
Usually givenat the end of
the year
Periodic Assessmentto show progress
throughout the year
Frequent Assessmentto show progress of each student
Data Assessment
School data
Community Perception
Data
Assessment Data
Program Effectiveness
Data
Student Information
Data
Crucial Distinction
Assessment of Learning:
• How much have students learned as of a particular point of time?
Assessment for Learning:
• How can we use assessment to help students learn more?
Books Read
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004
School Year
Num
ber
of
Books R
ead
Reading Skills Growth
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A.K. D.N. E.A. G.A. J.M. K.C. L.T. P.V M.A.
Readin
g G
rade L
evel
Sept, 2002Feb, 2004
…and that’s the end of our tale.
Sheridan Elementaryhttp://sheridan.spps.org