Driven
Decision Based on Data
By Nazliati,M.Ed
By Nazliati,M.Ed
For the last two years, the overall
performance of Leveret Elementary School shows a significant improvement;
however, the school also records several weaknesses on the certain subgroup,
which result in low scores. The further
school improvement program should be designed to support the lower’s score
students and maintain those who have already had good scores.
In medicine, diagnosis comes first before
treatment; therefore, before making decision of what the school should focus
on, a school data evaluation is strongly recommended. The present school
performances are the crucial point for the further movement. It can be used to
monitor the school progress and chart where the today’s school and where we are
going to be. Too often, the principals address the improvement priority based
on their own thoughts and skip the need of the students. To avoid this
circumstance, the school should conduct an assessment, and the result will determine
a turning point of the further school improvement plan.
Leverett Elementary School is a
diverse and multiethnic school building. The objective of this school is to promote excellence by educating its diverse
students population in a nurturing, challenging and disciplined environment.
The school is committed to helping all students gain the necessary skills to
become responsible citizens and life-long learners (ACSIP, 2009/10).
Having such a large diverse students group at school
requires more skill in approaching them. In addition, if the school is required
to offer a new approach for the next year of school improvement plan, the
school should be able to clearly identify the present school situation. For
example, the school should exactly know the percentage of the students score on
standardize test, are they getting higher or lower during the past two years?
Multiple Data
Resources
Driven decision using multiple data resources will
contribute an innovative thought and lead to the most effective future school
improvement plan.
a. The National Office for Research on
Measurement and Evaluation Systems
(NORMES).
Figure
1. Literacy Performances in 2008/09 by Grade level and Demographic
School Demographics
|
Grades
|
|||||||||||||
Sub
Population
|
Total
Tester
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
||||||||||
A
|
P
|
B
|
BB
|
A
|
P
|
B
|
BB
|
A
|
P
|
B
|
BB
|
|||
Combined
Population
|
35/36/37
|
45.7
|
28.6
|
17.1
|
8.6
|
30.6
|
27.8
|
33.3
|
8.3
|
48.6
|
16.2
|
24.3
|
10.8
|
|
46/40/39
|
60.9
|
17.4
|
17.4
|
4.3
|
30
|
35
|
25
|
10
|
17.9
|
51.3
|
25.6
|
5.1
|
||
African-American
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Hispanic
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Caucasian
|
21/25/22
|
47.6
|
23.8
|
14.3
|
14.3
|
40
|
32
|
24
|
4
|
54.5
|
13.6
|
18.2
|
13.6
|
|
29/24/26
|
55.2
|
20.7
|
20.7
|
3.4
|
25
|
37.5
|
20.8
|
16.7
|
26.9
|
50
|
19.2
|
3.8
|
||
Economic
Disadvantaged
|
26/22/23
|
34.6
|
30.8
|
23.1
|
11.5
|
36.4
|
13.6
|
40.9
|
9.1
|
34.8
|
13
|
34.8
|
17.4
|
|
29/30/25
|
51.7
|
20.7
|
24.1
|
3.4
|
23.3
|
33.3
|
30
|
13.3
|
12
|
52
|
28
|
8
|
||
Limited English Proficient
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Students with Disabilities
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Female
|
21/19/13
|
52.375
|
28.575
|
14.275
|
4.775
|
31.575
|
31.575
|
21.0
75
|
15.7
75
|
46.175
|
30.775
|
23.075
|
10.5
|
|
22/22/19
|
63.6
|
18.2
|
18.2
|
0
|
50
|
36.4
|
4.5
|
9.1
|
15.8
|
36.8
|
36.8
|
10.5
|
||
Male
|
14/17/24
|
35.7
|
28.6
|
21.4
|
14.3
|
29.4
|
23.5
|
47.1
|
0
|
50
|
8.3
|
25
|
16.7
|
|
24/18/20
|
58.3
|
16.7
|
16.7
|
8.3
|
5.6
|
33.3
|
50
|
11.1
|
20
|
65
|
15
|
0
|
||
Figure
2: Mathematics Performances in 2008/09 by Grade level and Demographic
School Demographics
|
Grades
|
|||||||||||||
Sub
Population
|
Total
Tester
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
||||||||||
A
|
P
|
B
|
BB
|
A
|
P
|
B
|
BB
|
A
|
P
|
B
|
BB
|
|||
Combined
Population
|
35/36/37
|
54.3
|
31.4
|
8.6
|
5.7
|
55.575
|
22.175
|
5.575
|
16.675
|
35.1
|
35.1
|
10.8
|
18.9
|
|
46/40/39
|
60.9
|
30.4
|
8.7
|
0
|
35
|
45
|
12.5
|
7.5
|
51.3
|
25.6
|
5.1
|
17.9
|
||
African-American
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Hispanic
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Caucasian
|
21/25/22
|
57.1
|
23.8
|
9.5
|
9.5
|
60
|
28
|
0
|
12
|
40.9
|
22.7
|
9.1
|
27.3
|
|
29/24/26
|
55.2
|
34.5
|
10.3
|
0
|
29.2
|
50
|
8.3
|
12.5
|
65.4
|
19.2
|
0
|
15.4
|
||
Economic
Disadvantaged
|
26/22/23
|
46.2
|
34.6
|
11.5
|
7.7
|
50
|
18.2
|
9.1
|
22.7
|
26.1
|
39.1
|
8.7
|
26.1
|
|
29/30/25
|
55.2
|
34.5
|
10.3
|
0
|
26.675
|
46.675
|
16.675
|
9.975
|
52
|
16
|
8
|
24
|
||
Limited English Proficient
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Students with Disabilities
|
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
||||||||||
<10
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
No Report
|
|||||||||||
Female
|
21/19/13
|
47.575
|
42.875
|
4.775
|
4.775
|
42.1
|
26.3
|
5.3
|
26.3
|
46.175
|
30.775
|
23.075
|
10.5
|
|
22/22/19
|
63.6
|
22.7
|
13.6
|
0
|
40.9
|
36.4
|
13.6
|
9.1
|
15.8
|
36.8
|
36.8
|
10.5
|
||
Male
|
14/17/24
|
64.3
|
14.3
|
14.3
|
7.1
|
70.6
|
17.6
|
5.9
|
5.9
|
45.8
|
25
|
4.2
|
25
|
|
24/18/20
|
58.3
|
37.5
|
4.2
|
0
|
27.775
|
55.75
|
11.075
|
5.575
|
60
|
30
|
10
|
|||
Mathematics
and Literacy’s Percent Proficient Growth in 2008
Mathematics
and Literacy’s Percent Proficient Growth in 2009
Both above charts show that students
make good scores for math (blue color) classes.
The data also show a significant improvement in the 2009. During these two years, the overall literacy
classes have not showed any significant improvement yet. It can be easily
interpreted that the school needs to focus on Literacy classes for the school
improvement plan. As specified in 2009
data, two subgroups of Literacy classes --- Students with disabilities and
African-American are the groups with the greatest need for attention and
intervention.
b.
Arkansas Comprehensive Improvement Plan (ACSIP)
1.
Benchmark-3rd Grade literacy and Mathematics Exam
In 2008 and 2009, the Combined
Population’s proficient/advanced literacy scores were 68% and 97%, and the math
scores were 81% and 91%. The Economically Disadvantaged population’s
proficient/advanced literacy scores were 62% and 73%, and the math score were
75% and 90%. Meanwhile, the Caucasian sub population’s proficient/advanced
literacy scores were 78% and 77%, and the math scores were 89% and 74%.
2.
Benchmark-4th Literacy and Mathematic Exam
In 2008 and 2009 school year, the
combined population’s proficient advanced literacy score were 63% and 64%, and
the math scores were 80% and 78%. In the same two years, the Economically
Disadvantaged population’s proficient/advanced literacy scores were 58% and
56%, and the math score were 73% and 72%. The Caucasian population’s
proficient/advanced literacy scores were
74% and 63%, and the math scores were 89% and 74%.
3.
Benchmark -5th Grade Literacy and Mathematics Exam
In 2008-2009 school years, the
Combined Population’s proficient/advanced literacy scores were 41% and 67%, and
the math scores were 74% and 77%. The Economically Advantaged population’s
proficient/advanced literacy scores were 18% and 61%, and the math scores were
69% and 68%. The Caucasian population’s proficient/advanced literacy scores
were 43% and 74%, and the math scores were 67% and 85%.
All subgroups are eligible for Safe
Harbor based on the percent tested, attendance rate and proficiency change. The
attendance goal of Leverett Elementary School was 91.13%, and the attendance
rate in 200/09 was 94.8%.
Even though both data sources
slightly show different on number, it is still valuable, because both of them
explain the same meaning. It can be
interpreted that the students have problem with Literacy. However, it is
suggested to make a further evaluation before making decision, to figure out
whether the problem on the students, teachers or material. In addition, the
data evaluation will integrate individual students and institutional variable
that can impact the student academic achievement.
References:
The
Arkansas Comprehensive School Improvement Plan (ACSIP). Retrieved from http://
Acsip.state.ar.us/cgi-bin/index.cgi?rm=report_acsip
The
National for Research on Measurement and Evaluation Systems (NORMES).
Retrieved from http://normessasweb.uark.edu/schoolperformance/School/
Summary.php
No comments:
Post a Comment