purposeto provide the district data team with an example of a data overview presentation. related...
TRANSCRIPT
Purpose To provide the District Data Team with an example of a data overview presentation.
Related Documents2–Inquiry Module2.3.1T: Data Overview Checklist
Description In this activity, you will review and critique a sample data overview presented by the Scenic Cove District Data Team. Review the PowerPoint presentation and use the Data Overview Checklist to determine if all of the essential elements are present. As a District Data Team, discuss how the Scenic Cove School District ELA Data Overview could be improved.
Time Approximately 1 hour.
2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
DATA OVERVIEW EXAMPLE 2.3.2R
1
Data Overview Presentation, September 2009
Presented by the District Data Team
22.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Agenda1. Purpose of this presentation
2. Presentation of relevant data displays
3. Collaboratively brainstorm to:
• Identify and prioritize a problem evident in the data
• Formulate hypotheses to explain the problem
• Generate clarifying questions to direct further inquiry
• Identify additional data needed and potential data sources
4. Discuss next steps
32.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
The Issues
The academic performance of English language learners (ELLs) in the Scenic Cove School District is lower than the statewide population of ELLs at several grade levels on 2009 MCAS English Language Arts (ELA) tests.
The academic performance of ELLs in the district lags behind their native English-speaking peers.
The academic performance of ELLs in the district falls below established NCLB performance and improvement targets.
42.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Purpose
To begin the process of collaborative inquiry that will address the focusing questions:
1. What does the performance of ELLs in the district look like over time on MCAS ELA tests?
2. How does the performance of ELLs in the district compare to that of ELLs state-wide on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?
3. Why is the performance of ELLs in some grades closer to the state average than others on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?
4. What is the performance of ELLs in targeted grades in district schools on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?
5. How does the performance of ELLs in the district compare to the state on the 2009 MEPA test?
52.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
What does the performance of ELLs in the district looklike over time on MCAS ELA tests?
6
Source: Data Warehouse > Public Folders > ESE Cubes > MCAS Official Release 2009
Tests Administeredas values 2006 2007 2008 2009 2006–2009
Change
3 A/P 25.3% 23.3% 31.5% 27.1% 1.8%
NI 51.6% 47.8% 41.6% 38.6% -13.0%
W/F 23.2% 28.9% 27.0% 34.3% 11.1%
4 A/P 3.7% 11.5% 11.8% 14.6% 10.9%
NI 53.2% 39.7% 38.2% 43.9% -9.3%
W/F 43.1% 48.7% 50.0% 41.5% -1.6%
5 A/P 2.6% 8.0% 1.7% 9.6% 7%
NI 40.2% 27.6% 14.8% 33.7% -6.5%
W/F 57.3% 64.4% 83.5% 56.6% -0.7%
6 A/P 5.0% 6.3% 15.9% 11.5% 6.5%
NI 26.7% 33.3% 36.5% 32.8% 6.1%
W/F 68.3% 60.3% 47.6% 55.7% -12.6%
7 A/P 10.0% 1.5% 9.4% 9.7% -0.3%
NI 20.0% 27.3% 25.0% 29.2% 9.2%
W/F 70.0% 71.2% 65.6% 61.1% -8.9%
8 A/P 4.5% 7.8% 7.4% 7.8% 3.3%
NI 22.7% 18.9% 25.3% 20.7% -2.0%
W/F 72.7% 73.3% 67.4% 71.6% -1.1%
10 A/P 16.3% 4.7% 5.9% 3.0% -13.3%
NI 46.5% 31.3% 35.3% 19.7% -26.8%
W/F 37.2% 64.1% 58.8% 77.3% 40.1%2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
How does the performance of ELLs in the district compare to that of ELLs state-wide on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?
7
Source: Data Warehouse > Public Folders > ESE Cubes > MCAS Official Release 2009
District State Difference
Tests Administeredas values 2009 2009
3 (N = 70)
A/P 27.1% 26.2% 0.9%
NI 38.6% 40.7% -2.1%
W/F 34.3% 33.0% 1.3%
4 (N = 82)
A/P 14.6% 18.0% -3.4%
NI 43.9% 46.8% -2.9%
W/F 41.5% 35.2% 6.3%
5 (N = 83)
A/P 9.6% 16.3% -6.7%
NI 33.7% 40.5% -6.8%
W/F 56.6% 43.2% 13.4%
6 (N = 61)
A/P 11.5% 18.7% -7.2%
NI 32.8% 34.3% -1.5%
W/F 55.7% 47.0% 8.7%
7 (N = 72)
A/P 9.7% 13.1% -3.4%
NI 29.2% 34.7% -5.5%
W/F 61.1% 52.2% 8.9%
8 (N = 116)
A/P 7.8% 12.9% -5.1%
NI 20.7% 27.0% -6.3%
W/F 71.6% 60.1% 11.5%
10 (N = 66)
A/P 3.0% 21.8% -18.8%
NI 19.7% 36.8% -17.1%
W/F 77.3% 41.4% 35.9%2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Why is the performance of ELLs in some grades closer to the state average than others on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?
8
Source: Data Warehouse > Public Folders > ESE Cubes > MCAS Official Release 2009
District State Difference
Tests Administeredas values 2009 2009
3 (N = 70)
A/P 27.1% 26.2% 0.9%
NI 38.6% 40.7% -2.1%
W/F 34.3% 33.0% 1.3%
4 (N = 82)
A/P 14.6% 18.0% -3.4%
NI 43.9% 46.8% -2.9%
W/F 41.5% 35.2% 6.3%
5 (N = 83)
A/P 9.6% 16.3% -6.7%
NI 33.7% 40.5% -6.8%
W/F 56.6% 43.2% 13.4%
6 (N = 61)
A/P 11.5% 18.7% -7.2%
NI 32.8% 34.3% -1.5%
W/F 55.7% 47.0% 8.7%
7 (N = 72)
A/P 9.7% 13.1% -3.4%
NI 29.2% 34.7% -5.5%
W/F 61.1% 52.2% 8.9%
8 (N = 116)
A/P 7.8% 12.9% -5.1%
NI 20.7% 27.0% -6.3%
W/F 71.6% 60.1% 11.5%
10 (N = 66)
A/P 3.0% 21.8% -18.8%
NI 19.7% 36.8% -17.1%
W/F 77.3% 41.4% 35.9%2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
What is the performance of ELLs in targeted grades indistrict schools on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?*
9
*Minimum 10 StudentsSource: Data Warehouse > Public Folders > ESE Cubes > MCAS Official Release 2009
Sea Breeze ES Sea Gull ES Golden
Sands ES Rip Tide ES Coral ES
Tests Administeredas Values 2009 2009 2009 2009 2009
3 N 4 21 0 0 32
A/P 100.0% 23.8% 21.9%
NI 0.0% 23.8% 56.3%
W/F 0.0% 52.4% 21.9%
4 N 6 2 4 2 49
A/P 16.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 18.4%
NI 83.3% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 34.7%
W/F 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 46.9%
5 N 3 5 15 42 0
A/P 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4%
NI 0.0% 0.0% 60.0% 31.0%
W/F 0.0% 100.0% 40.0% 66.7%
2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
What is the performance of ELLs in targeted grades indistrict schools on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?*
10
*Minimum 10 StudentsSource: Data Warehouse > Public Folders > ESE Cubes > MCAS Official Release 2009
Coastal MS Rock MS
Tests Administeredas Values 2009 2009
6 N 53 8
A/P 13.2%
NI 34.0% 25.0%
W/F 52.8% 75.0%
7 N 70 2
A/P 10.0%
NI 30.0%
W/F 60.0% 100.0%
8 N 95 18
A/P 2.1% 27.8%
NI 20.0% 22.2%
W/F 77.9% 50.0%
2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
What is the performance of ELLs in targeted grades indistrict schools on the 2009 MCAS ELA test?*
11
*Minimum 10 StudentsSource: Data Warehouse > Public Folders > ESE Cubes > MCAS Official Release 2009
Ebb Tide HS
Tests Administeredas values 2009
10 N 66
A/P 3.0%
NI 19.7%
W/F 77.3%
2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Spring 2009 MEPA Results:Percentage of Students at Each Performance Level by Years of Enrollment in the State and Scenic Cove
7
1
3
1
4
1
10
5
45
32
20
4
10
2
6
3
16
7
19
15
23
22
18
6
45
17
38
21
38
26
34
30
22
21
32
21
38
52
38
55
35
51
27
37
6
21
23
48
0
28
16
20
8
15
10
13
3
4
7
20
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Fifth Year or More - SC
Fifth Year or More - State
Fourth Year - SC
Fourth Year - State
Third Year - SC
Third Year - State
Second Year - SC
Second Year - State
First Year - SC
First Year - State
All Students - SC
All Students - State
Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5
Source: Massachusetts English Proficiency Assessment (MEPA) Statewide Results: Spring 2009; Spring 2009 MEPA Results by Districthttp://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/mepa/results.html
2.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Brainstorm Groups
Group A Group B Group C Group D
Jerry Jill Colleen Kerry
Maria Saleem Michelle Alex
Jose Jeff Clarence Jordan
Roger Patricia Cindy Ann
132.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Brainstorm!
Purpose To collaboratively investigate the focusing question.
What you will do?
Using the Data Overview Brainstorming Protocol, you will make observations, identify problems, form hypotheses, and craft clarifying questions related to the focusing question.
Estimated Time
About 30 minutes.
142.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0
Next Steps
What additional data do we need to collect?
Who will collect the data?
How will the data be collected?
When will we have collected the data?
Who will analyze the data?
What materials should we have for the next meeting?
Next meeting date and time?
152.3.2R: Data Overview Example—Version 1.0