Overview of Guided Inquiry

1
What to do with Data From Analysis to Planning
for Improved Student Achievement Draft
2
Welcome

• Thank you for joining us
• Please identify yourself in the chat area now
• Introductions will follow

3
Housekeeping

• Communication
• Webinar is in presentation mode.
• Audio is primarily over the Internet. (Quick
  Audio Check Poll)
• Questions are welcomed submit them online in the
  text-chat area (lower-left). These will be
  collected and addressed via a FAQ.
• Conference Call only webinar participants -
  please send questions to Kathy Pettibone at
  kpettibone_at_cde.ca.gov

4
Housekeeping - cont.

• Tech Support During the Event
• text-chat klarsen_at_wested.org
• The event is being recorded and will be available
  afterwards on the ESEA webpage at
• http//www.cacompcenter.org/esea-requirements

5
Introductions

• Laura Wagner, Administrator, District Improvement
  Office, California Department of Education (CDE)
• Ron Taylor, Administrator, Professional
  Development and Curriculum Support Office, CDE
• Zoe Ann Brown, Senior Program Associate,
  Comprehensive Center at WestEd
• Jenny Singh, Education Research and Evaluation
  Consultant, Evaluation, Research and Analysis
  Office, CDE

6
Introductions

• Robert Linquanti, Director and Senior Research
  Associate, Comprehensive Center at WestEd
• Tiffany Miller, Education Programs Consultant,
  Professional Development Office, CDE
• Kathy Pettibone, Education Programs Consultant,
  District Improvement Office, CDE
• Lilia Sanchez, Education Programs Consultant,
  Language Policy and Leadership Office, CDE

7
Purposes

• Provide LEA staff with a 5-step data-driven
  inquiry model for improving student achievement.
• Facilitate review of sample LEA achievement data
  to identify key challenges.
• Provide practice in finding and verifying root
  causes of student underachievement.
• Identify prospective high-leverage action steps
  that might be incorporated into components of the
  LEA plan.

8
Outcomes

• Participants will understand
• Title I, Title II, and Title III Requirements
• How to look at data and identify challenges
• The difference between achievement challenges and
  root causes for underachievement
• Ways to identify and verify root causes
• Where to find key research-based strategies for
  improving achievement and language proficiency
• Propose potential high leverage actions that
  address multiple program needs

9
5 Step Inquiry Model for Improving Student
Achievement
10
Understand the Goals Title I, Title II and Title
III
11
Understand Title I Plan Requirements
12
Understand Title II Plan Requirements
13
Understand Title III Plan Requirements
14
Analyzing LEA dataavailable from State
15
Compiling State Level Data

• Available state level student achievement data
• Statewide Accountability
• Academic Performance Index (API)
• Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• Program Improvement (PI) Status
• Title III
• Statewide Testing Programs
• Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
• California High School Exit Examination (CAHSEE)
• California English Language Development Test
  (CELDT)

16
Sample District Demographics San Ejemplo
17
San Ejemplo District Demographics Continued
18
Academic Performance Index (API)
19
What Is the API?

• Single number ranges from 200 - 1000
• Based on student performance on statewide
  assessments across multiple subject areas
• Cross-sectional look at student achievementdoes
  not track individual student progress

20
Districtwide Base and Growth APIs for Four Years
21
District API Growth for 2009
19
27
32
35
36
29
42
22
What the API District Data Tell Us

• All student groups improved from 2008 to 2009.
• The district and all student groups made 5 or
  more growth from 2008 to 2009.
• The district and numerically significant student
  groups are not at or above the statewide target
  of 800.

23
What the API District Data Tell Us (Continued)

• All numerically significant student groups made
  more growth than the White student group.
• The White group scores highest on API.

24
What the API District Data Does Not Tell Us

• Which content areas improved
• How many students are scoring at each performance
  level in each content area
• The percent of students at proficient or above by
  content area

25
What the API District Data Does Not Tell Us
(Continued)

• What caused the jump in API growth from 2008 to
  2009
• Where to focus instructional resources
• Whether specific instructional intervention
  programs were effective

26
AdequateYearly Progress(AYP)
27
AYP Components

• Participation rate
• English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics
• Percent proficient
• ELA and Mathematics
• API
• Graduation rate
• High schools only

28
AYP Grade Span DataGrades 2-5 Percent Proficient
in Mathematics
29
AYP Grade Span DataGrades 6-8 Percent Proficient
in Mathematics
30
AYP Grade Span DataGrade 10 Percent Proficient
in Mathematics
Note ELs were not numerically significant in
2006 and 2007
31
Identifying the Achievement GapMathematics (AYP
Data) Percent At or Above Proficient
32
What the AYP District Results Tell Us

• The elementary grade span has significantly more
  students scoring proficient in mathematics than
  the middle and high school grade spans.
• The percentage of students scoring proficient in
  the middle school grade span (26.9) is below the
  statewide target (47.5).

33
What the AYP District Results Tell Us (Continued)

• The percentage of students scoring proficient in
  the high school grade span (33.5) is below the
  statewide target (43.5).
• All student groups made more progress over the
  past four years than statewide average for each
  student group.

34
What the AYP District Results Tell Us (Continued)

• The percent of students scoring proficient in
  mathematics increased in all three grade spans
  over the last four years
• The achievement gap in mathematics has narrowed.

35
What the AYP District ResultsDo Not Tell Us

• Does not provide any information about students
  scoring below proficiency
• Does not identify the root cause of problems in
  Mathematics
• Does not provide us with information on how well
  students in grades 9-11 are performing on the
  California Standards Tests (CSTs) in Mathematics

36
Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR)
37
Grade Span STAR Mathematics Data Grades 2-5
Percent of Students
38
Grade Span STAR Mathematics Data Grades 6-7
Percent of Students
39
Number of Students Tested in Mathematics (STAR
Data)
40
Percent Proficient in General Mathematics
Algebra (STAR Data)
41
Identifying the Achievement GapAlgebra STAR
DataPercent At or Above Proficient
42
Identifying the Achievement GapGeometry STAR
Data
Percent At or Above Proficient
43
What the District STAR Data Tells Us

• Grades 2-5 not only increased the percent of
  students scoring proficient in mathematics, but
  also reduced the percentage of students scoring
  at far below basic, below basic, and basic.
• The reduction of students scoring far below and
  below basic may explain the increase in the API.

44
What the District STAR Data Tells Us (Continued)

• Grades 6-7 reduced the percent of students
  scoring far below and below basic, but the
  percent of student scoring basic has increased
  since 2006.

45
What the District STAR Data Tells Us (Continued)

• The district practice for placing grade 8
  students in Algebra changes frequently.
• In 2006, all grade 8 students took Algebra.
• In 2007 and 2008 approximately half of the
  students were placed in Algebra.
• In 2009, the district placed all students in
  Algebra again.

46
What the District STAR Data Tells Us (Continued)

• The percentage of grade 8 students scoring
  proficient in Algebra has steadily declined.
• The percentage of the student in grades 9-11
  scoring proficient in Algebra has been
  consistently low (6 or less) for the last four
  years and is significantly below the state
  average (28 in 2009).

47
What the District STAR Data Tell Us (Continued)

• The achievement gap in Algebra has narrowed from
  2006 to 2009, but only because the percentage of
  the White student group scoring proficient fell
  more than other student groups.

48
Additional Academic Indices for English Learners

• Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAO)
• California English Language Development Test
  (CELDT)

49
Title III Accountability

• AMAO 1 (CELDT)
• Annual Progress in Learning English
• AMAO 2 (CELDT)
• Attaining English Proficiency on CELDT
• AMAO 3 (CST, CAPA, CAHSEE)
• Meeting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
• for the EL Subgroup at the LEA level

50
AMAO 1 - Annual Progress in Learning English

• Each EL has annual growth expectation based on
  previous CELDT score
• Title III subgrantees have an annual target
• Annual growth expectation for ELs
• ELs at Beginning, Early Intermediate, and
  Intermediate gain one proficiency level
• ELs at Early Advanced and Advanced reach the
  English proficient level (bring all skills up to
  Intermediate level)
• ELs at English proficient level expected to
  maintain that level until reclassified

51
AMAO 2 - Attaining English Proficiency

• English proficient level on CELDT
• Early Advanced or Advanced Overall
• Reading, Writing, Listening, and Speaking are at
  the Intermediate level or above
• English proficient on CELDT is not the same as
  being reclassified R-FEP

52
AMAO 2 Cohort includes ELs who in prior year were

• Intermediate
• Early Advanced and Advanced but not English
  Proficient
• Beginning and Early Intermediate and have been in
  US schools more than 4 years
• LEAs get credit for Beginning and Early
  Intermediate in the prior year in US schools
  less than 4 years if they reach the English
  Proficient level in the current year.

53
AMAO 3 Academic Achievement

• LEA EL Subgroup meets AYP targets in
• English-Language Arts
• Participation rate
• Percent Proficient or above
• Mathematics
• Participation rate
• Percent Proficient or above
• EL subgroup for AYP includes Redesignated Fluent
  English Proficient (R-FEP) students until they
  score Proficient or above 3 times on the CST-ELA.
  

54
Composition of CELDT
Grade Span Test Forms
Composite overall score
5 proficiency levels, English-proficient level
defined
(http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/el/)
55
SEUSD 2008-09 Annual CELDT
Results (ELs in District 1 Year or )
N 809
56
Triangulating Data from Multiple Sources

• Examining the interaction of time, achievement,
  and language proficiency using ELSSA

57
ELSSA Table 5a.
AMAO 2 How are EL students performing on CELDT
based on the length of time they have been in US
schools?
58
ELSSA Table 7a.
AMAO 3 How are EL students at the English
proficient level on CELDT performing on CST-ELA,
by grade level?
59
ELSSA Survey Questions
60
LOCAL TASK 1

• Explore sample data for ELA/ELD (including ELSSA
  charts).
• What are the challenges identified in the data?
  (who, what, when, where)
• Enter one key challenge.

61
Identifying the Achievement GapEnglish Language
Arts (AYP Data) Percent At or Above Proficient
62
CELDT Table
63
ELSSA Table 5a
64
CAHSEE
65
Summary of Challenges

• Algebra and geometry performance is low.
• African Americans, Hispanics, SED, ELs, and SWD
  are under-achieving in ELA.
• ELs are consistently scoring low in Reading on
  CELDT.
• Most ELs in grades 6-8 are at the intermediate
  English proficiency level (CELDT 3) for multiple
  years.
• All student groups have lower CAHSEE passing
  rates than those in the county and state.

66
Identifying and Verifying Root Causes

• A challenge is not a cause
• Look beyond challenges to local information to
  identify causes
• Identify root causes
• brainstorm all possibilities and then verify
• use state tools
• Academic Program Survey (APS)
• District Assistance Survey (DAS)
• Inventory of Services and Supports for Students
  with Disabilities (ISS)
• ELSSA Survey questions/summary
• Equitable Distribution Plan (EDP)

67
Academic Program Survey

• Foundational analysis of nine essential program
  components for instructional success
• Three grade span surveys to assess presence of
  standards-aligned instructional features,
  teacher/administrator support structures and
  aligned resources

68
District Assistance Survey

• Based on seven District Assistance and
  Intervention Team areas and 39 standards adopted
  by the State Board of Education.
• Each standard is measured holistically by a
  statement of full implementation.
• DAS is evidence of district level support for
  nine essential program components in the APS.

69
Inventory of Services and Supports for Students
with Disabilities

• Based on seven DAIT areas, assesses specific
  district support for SWD.
• Measured by a synthesis statement for each area.

70
Equitable Distribution Plan

• Data tools designed to assess teacher
  qualifications and their impact on student
  achievement.
• Also includes measures of teacher recruitment,
  training and retention.

71
Equitable Distribution of Teachers

• Slide 1

72
Highly Qualified and Equitably Distributed
Teachers

• Slide 2

73
Highly Qualified and Equitably Distributed
Teachers
74
LOCAL TASK 2

• Please look at sample reports from state tools
  and teacher qualification data to identify one
  possible root cause and how it was (or can be)
  verified.
• Enter possible root cause online.

75
Root Causes

• Lack of reading interventions for students in
  grades 4-8 reading 2 or more years below
  grade-level (therefore no exit and entry
  criteria).
• Lack of demonstrated subject matter competency
  of teachers at the middle school level and high
  school math.
• Lack of teacher training in EL research-based
  strategies.
• Lack of CAHSEE-specific preparation for all
  students.

76
Select Research-based Solutions for Root Causes

• As required by ESEA, research-based strategies
  and program to address cause of underachievement
• Focused review of the research for each challenge

77
Links to Research-Based Solutions

• What Works Clearinghouse http//ies.ed.gov/ncee/
  wwc/
• Doing What Works
  http//dww.ed.gov/
• Center on Instruction http//www.centeroninstructi
  on.org/
• APS and EPCs http//www.cacompcenter.org/pdf/aps_r
  esearch_summary.pdf
• Center on Innovation and Improvement
  http//www.centerii.org/search/ciisearch.aspx
• Teacher Quality
  http//www.tqsource.org/
• EL Research http//www.schoolsmovingup.net/cs/smu/
  view/rs/18044

78
www.cacompcenter.org/esea-requirements
79
Prioritizing High-Leverage Actions

• Focus on root cause and identify 3 or 4 key
  actions.
• Determine whether actions can be consolidated to
  address more than one root cause.
• Put a limited number of actions in the LEA Plan,
  LEA Plan addendum, Title III Action Plan, Title
  III Improvement Plan Addendum, or Equitable
  Distribution Plan to address multiple
  underachievement causes.

80
LOCAL TASK 3

• Using what you know about effective
  research-based solutions for improving student
  achievement, discuss some high-leverage action
  steps for the identified challenges.
• Share one high-leverage action step online.

81
High-leverage actions

• Implement strategic and intensive interventions
  for ELA in grades 6-8, including entry and exit
  criteria.
• Prioritize teacher placement and support (e.g.,
  BTSA) and instructional resources to lowest
  performing schools.
• Provide ongoing, embedded teacher professional
  development in mathematics at the secondary
  levels, in strategies for teaching English
  Learners, and in ways to make IEP decisions about
  SWD interventions at all levels.
• Provide CAHSEE Intervention course based on
  student need.

82
Develop or Revise,Implement, andMonitor Plans

• Recognize that all of the following are part of
  the umbrella LEA Plan
• Title I LEA Plan or LEA Plan addendum
• Title II Equitable Distribution Plan
• Title III Year 2 Improvement Plan Addendum or
  Year 4 Action Plan

83
Plan Components

• Needs assessment
• Objectives
• Activities
• Timeframe
• Person Responsible
• Cost
• Funding Source
• How will you know it worked?

84
2009 ESEA Resources

• Webinars and other resources are posted at
• www.cacompcenter.org/esea-requriements

• Title I website http//www.cde.ca.gov/ta/ac/ti/le
  apireq.asp
• Title II website http//www.cde.ca.gov/nclb/sr/tq/
  tiicmis.asp
• Title III website http//www.cde.ca.gov/sp/el/t3/

85
5 Step Inquiry Model for Improving Student
Achievement
86
Contact Information
Robert Linquanti rlinqua_at_wested.org Tiffany
Miller tmiller_at_cde.ca.gov Kathy Pettibone
kpettibone_at_cde.ca.gov Lilia Sanchez
lsanchez_at_cde.ca.gov

• Laura Wagner lwagner_at_cde.ca.gov
• Ron Taylor rtaylor_at_cde.ca.gov
• Zoe Ann Brown zbrown_at_wested.org
• Jenny Singh singh_at_cde.ca.gov

87
Questions or Concerns?
88
Participant Survey

• Please give us feedback
• Click here to take the survey.

88
88
89

• Thank you for your participation.