The Achievement Gap Narrows Again

1
1
2
2
3
The Achievement Gap Narrows Again

• For the second year in a row, the scores also
  represent a narrowing of the achievement gap.
  While this did not occur across the board, the
  gap between the percentage scoring proficient and
  above narrowed on eight of the 12 tests between
  whites and African-Americans and seven of 12
  tests between whites and Hispanics.

3
4
GRADE 3 Achievement Levels by Race
23
14
16
27
8
33
23
27
23
20
9
29
4
5
GRADE 4 Achievement Levels by Race
16
27
15
28
23
20
27
21
19
32
9
29
11
32
30
23
17
31
5
6
GRADE 5 Achievement Levels by Race
28
15
18
29
33
18
32
25
16
33
36
18
6
7
GRADE 6 Achievement Levels by Race
15
30
34
15
34
23
31
20
27
17
32
15
7
8
GRADE 7 Achievement Levels by Race
34
16
35
20
30
32
20
19
30
16
34
16
8
9
GRADE 8 Achievement Levels by Race
30
21
16
29
27
21
33
19
18
35
36
21
9
10
Benchmark Exam Scores
10
11
Benchmark Exam Scores
11
12
Benchmark Firsts

• First time over 60 in Grade 3 Literacy
• First time over 70 in Grade 4 Math
• First time over 60 in Grade 4 Literacy
• First time over 60 in Grade 5 Literacy
• First time over 70 in Grade 6 Math
• First time over 60 in Grade 7 Math
• First time over 50 in Grade 8 Math

12
13
NAEP Grade 4 Math Scale Score Gains, Overall,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 40 states with Overall data
in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
13
14
NAEP Grade 4 Math Scale Score Gains, African
American, 2000-2007
Rankings are for the 32 states with African
American data in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
14
15
NAEP Grade 4 Math Scale Score Gains, Poor,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 40 states with Poor data in
both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
15
16
NAEP Grade 8 Math Scale Score Gains, African
American, 2000-2007
Rankings are for the 28 states with African
American data in both 2000 and 2007.
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
16
17
NAEP Grade 8 Math Scale Score Gains, Poor,
2000-2007
Rankings are for the 39 states with Poor data in
both 2000 and 2007.
17
Source National Center for Education
Statistics, NAEP Data Explorer,
http//nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/nde/
18
States that have shown true leadership, such as
Arkansas and Massachusetts, can inspire others to
act.
U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings
The Washington PostJune 2007
18
19
Where We Need to Go
19
20
How do we move forward?

• Eliminate Smart Core Opt-Out
• Target Resources
• Focus on Closing Achievement Gap

20
21
21
22

• Closing the Gap
• All students
• System of Services for Students

22
23
Organizational Model For Maximizing Student
Achievement
Data Driven Leadership
Behavior, Discipline, Climate
Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment
Student Services
Parent and Community Outreach
Professional Development, Mentoring
23
24
Multi-dimensional Model of Services for Students
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems

• Universal Interventions
• All students
• Preventive, proactive

• Universal Interventions
• All settings, all students
• Preventive, proactive

1-5
1-5
5-10

• Targeted Interventions
• Some students
• (at-risk)
• High efficiency
• Rapid response

5-10

• Targeted Interventions
• Some students (at-risk)
• High efficiency
• Rapid response

• Intensive, Individual
• Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment-based
• High Intensity
• Of longer duration

• Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment-based
• Intense, durable procedures

80-90
80-90
Adapted from Horner Sugai
24
25

• Core Instruction
• Grade Level or above
• All Students

25
26
26
27
Problem Identification
I
II
Response to Intervention
III
Problem Analysis
27
Intervention Design
28
28
29
AR Standards and Indicators for School Improvement
29
30
30
31
31
32
Effective School Improvement Planning

• Develops a plan in consultation with teachers,
  principals, administrators, other appropriate
  school personnel, and parents of children in
  school. (No Child Left Behind)
• Meets Requirements of related State Legislation
  and NCLB

32
33
Steps to the ACSIP Process

• Reviewing/Revising Mission Statement
• Collecting, Profiling, and Analyzing Data
• Selecting Priorities and Setting Goals
• Setting Benchmarks (AYP)
• Selecting Scientifically-Based Research
  Interventions
• Developing Actions
• Implementing Plan
• Monitoring and Evaluating Plan

ALIGNMENT
33
34
Alignment

• System
• Curriculum and Assessments
• Instructional Practices

34
35

Collecting, Profiling, and Analyzing Data

• Non-Academic Data (Maintain the most current
  three-year history of data)
• Graduation Rate (9-12)
• Drop Out Rate
• Average Daily Attendance (K-8)
• Classes Taught by High Qualified Staff
• Professional Development
• School Safety
• Technology Data
• Optional Data (Discretion of School)

• Academic Data
• (Maintain the most current three year history of
  data if available)
• Criterion-Referenced Tests
• Benchmark Exams
• (Grade Level Benchmarks, and all End of Course
  Exams)
• Norm-Referenced Tests
• Stanford 10, DIBELS, etc.
• Other Assessments (Optional)
• (ACT, PLAN, EXPLORE, Locally developed
  assessments)

35
Items used for AYP accountability
36
Academic Data Disaggregation

• CRT Analyze combined school population, and all
  required subgroups, to include percent of
  students scoring proficient.
• Math - Analysis should identify student
  weaknesses in strands and goals and in
  open-response versus multiple choice items.
• Literacy - Analysis should identify student
  weaknesses in multiple choice, open
  response reading passages and writing
  domains.
• NRT Analyze school population to include
  subtest and
• sub-skill performance in the complete battery
  of tests.

36
37
Academic Data Disaggregation

• Disaggregated data should reflect information on
  the following subpopulations
• Economically Disadvantaged (SES)
• Racial/Ethnic
• Caucasian Hispanic African American
• Students with Disabilities (IEP)
• LEP Students

37
38
Non-Academic Data Disaggregation

• Include Daily Attendance rate for K-8 and
  Graduation Rate for 9-12. If these areas fall
  below the required state standards, they must be
  addressed through appropriate Interventions and
  Actions.
• Review all other non-academic data reflected on
  the School Report Card/APSCN.

38
39
Selecting Priorities

• PriorityA specific target area of improvement in
  student achievement that has been determined by
  data.
• Example- Mathematics and Literacy
• Additional Priority if appropriate data reflect
  the need.

39
40
Setting Goals

• Goals are directly linked to a priority.
• Goals narrow the scope of a priority by
  addressing specific weaknesses based on data
  disaggregation.
• Example- To improve comprehension skills in
  practical reading.
• To improve writing content with emphasis on
  elaboration.

40
41
Setting BenchmarksAdequate Yearly Progress

• Benchmarks measure student expectations that
  must be achieved within a specified time frame.
• Benchmarks establish how much improvement
  students are expected to achieve (AYP), by
  when, as measured by the appropriate assessment.
• Benchmarks must be set for combined population
  as well as sub-populations.

41
42
Selecting Scientifically Based Research
Interventions

• Interventions are scientifically based research
  strategies or major initiatives which address the
  goal(s) and benchmarks. Interventions are
  supported by actions which help achieve the
  goals.
• Research citations should include author,
  title, source, and publication date.
• Example Comprehensive Literacy or
• Standards Based Mathematics.

42
43
Developing Actions

• Actions are multiple steps required to implement
  and maintain the intervention.
• Each action must be labeled with one or more of
  the following Action Types
• Alignment
• Academic Improvement Plan
• Collaboration
• Equity
• Parental Engagement
• Plan Evaluation
• Professional Development
• Special Education
• Technology Inclusion
• Wellness

43
44
AIP IRI RequirementsData Sources

• Kindergarten- Uniform Readiness Screening (URS)
• Qualls Early Learning Inventory (QELI)
  (K)
• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills
  (DIBELS) (K-2nd)
• Stanford 10 (Kindergarten through 2nd Grade
  9th)
• 3rd Grade through 8th Grade Benchmark
• End of Course Algebra Exam
• End of Course Geometry Exam
• End of Course Biology Exam
• Grade 11 Literacy Exam
• Results of EOC assessments shall become
  part of each students
• transcript or permanent record

44
45
Academic Improvement Plan (AIP) and Intensive
Reading Improvement (IRI) Plan Requirements
45
Students entering grade 3 may have an AIP based
on the 2nd grade NRT.
46
DIBELS(Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills)

• DIBELS assessment is used to Identify specific
  student weaknesses to be addressed in the IRI.
• Kindergarten students who are delayed must be
  evaluated with DIBELS within 30 days of
  receiving URS (Qualls) results.
• 1st 2nd grade students who are below basic
  on the NRT must be evaluated with DIBELS
  within 30 days of the beginning of school.

46
47
Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement
Planning Model
Reviewing/Revising Mission Statement
Collecting, Profiling, and Analyzing Data
Monitoring and Evaluating Plan
Selecting Priorities and Setting Goals
Implementing Plan

• Alignment
• System
• Curriculum
• Assessments
• Instructional
• Practices

Setting Benchmarks
Developing Actions
47
Selecting Scientifically-Based Research
Interventions
48
48