Using Data to Plan for Effective Professional Development

2012 NDE Data ConferenceIt’s More Than Numbers

April 2-3Kearney, NE

Sue Anderson, Ph.D., ESU 3 Debbie Schraeder, ESU 3

Session Topics•ESU 3 Rationale for Data Analysis

•Framework

•Process

•Findings

•Using the Results

Rationale•Understanding student achievement levels

will:

▫ assist in planning for effective professional development

▫assist supporting schools’ improvement efforts

Framework

Data Analysis Framework

•3 Critical Questions

▫What do the data show?

▫Why might this be?

▫How should we respond?

Process

• Data review on December 16, 2011▫ Individual ▫ Team Analysis – Content Areas

• District level SOSR data – Grades 3-8, 11▫ NeSA Math– All students - Overall/Sub Score Performance▫ NeSA Reading – All students – Overall/Sub Score Performance▫ NeSA Writing – All students▫ Demographic Data▫ Enrollment

2010-2011 NeSA Results – ESU 3 School Districts

Data Sets 2010-2011 NeSA Results – ESU 3 School Districts

Data Sets 2010-2011 Demographic Data– ESU 3 School Districts

• Review the data content

• Use the worksheet to record observations and reflections

Individual Work

• Share findings from individual analysis

• Discuss possible reasons for results

Group Work

• Offer suggestions for appropriate responses

Findings

What Do The Data Show?•2011 NeSA Reading

• Grade 3 (state proficiency – 70.95%)– 3 districts below• Grade 4 (state proficiency – 75.39%) – 6 districts below• Grade 5 (state proficiency – 70.01%)– 4 districts below

• Grade 6 (state proficiency – 73.72%)– 1 districts below• Grade 7 (state proficiency – 73.88%)– 3 districts below• Grade 8 (state proficiency – 71.44%)– 2 districts below

• Grade 11 (state proficiency – 67.32%) – 5 districts below

What Do The Data Show?2010 and 2011 NeSA Reading Proficiency Progress

• Elementary• Grade 3 – 5 districts (2010/4)

• Grade 4 – 4 districts (2010/6)

• Grade 5 – 6 districts (2010/4)

• Middle Grade 6 – 5 districts (2010/1)

Grade 7 – 5 districts (2010/3)

Grade 8 – 3 districts (2010/2)

• High School• Grade 11 – 2 districts

(2010/5)

What Do The Data Show?

• 9 districts ABOVE at ALL grade levels

• 7 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

• Comprehension – 8 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

• Vocabulary – 6 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

2011 NeSA Reading Overall

2011 NeSA Reading Sub Scores

What Do The Data Show?•2010 NeSA Math• Grade 3 (state proficiency – 67.40%) – 6 districts below• Grade 4 (state proficiency – 67.55%) – 9 districts below• Grade 5 (state proficiency – 65.96%) – 6 districts below

• Grade 6 (state proficiency – 62.88%) – 5 districts below• Grade 7 (state proficiency – 61.48%) – 5 districts below• Grade 8 (state proficiency – 60.58%) – 5 districts below

• Grade 11 (state proficiency – 53.86%) – 6 districts below

What Do The Data Show?

• 5 districts ABOVE at ALL grade levels

• 10 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

2011 NeSA Math Overall

What Do The Data Show?2011 NeSA Math Sub Score Results

• Number Sense

• 8 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

• Grades 3, 4, 5, 8 of greatest concern

• Algebraic

• 9 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

• Grades 4, 5, 6, 7,8 of greatest concern

• Geometric/Measurement

• 9 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

• Grades 3, 4, 7, 8 of greatest concern

• Data Analysis/Probability

• 9 districts BELOW at 2 or more grade levels

• Grades 3, 4, 5, 7,8, 11 of greatest concern

What Do The Data Show?• 2011 NeSA Writing

• Grade 4 (state proficiency – 4.00) – 2/18 districts below

• Grade 8 (state proficiency – 4.33) – 3/18 districts below

• Grade 11 (Not Tested)

• 15/18 districts meeting or exceeding proficiency at Grades 4 and 8

• 1 district at 100% proficiency at Grades 4 and 8

Why Might This Be?• Impact of student enrollment on proficiency outcomes

• Impact of FRL, SpEd, and ELL status on performance

• District and building improvement and leadership processes

• Levels to which curriculum and NeSA tests are aligned

• Levels to which curriculum is articulated vertically and horizontally

How Should We Respond?• Align professional development to school and district

outcomes for student achievement

• Encourage/support ongoing and focused professional development

• Align regional programs to district needs related to improving student achievement

• Provide expertise in curriculum and instruction in districts with more limited resources

• Assist schools in using data to inform improvement processes

Using the Results

2010-2011– ESU 3 School District Summary Data

ESU #3 Grade Levels Not Proficient •2011 NeSA Reading, Math, Writing

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11

Reading

5 4 6 5 5 3 2

Math 6 9 6 5 5 5 6

Writing 2 3 NT

ESU #3 Grade Levels Not Proficient •2011 NeSA Reading, Writing, Math

Grade 3 4 5 6 7 8 11

Reading

5 4 6 5 5 3 2

Math 6 9 6 5 5 5 6

Writing 2 3 NT

Using the Results•Share data analysis findings with ESU 3

districts via Professional Development Advisory

•Use results to inform decisions about regional professional development offerings

•Use results to assist schools in their improvement efforts

Questions/Comments