Van Hise Elementary School

Review of DataSchool Improvement Process

March 3, 2009

Why use data? How should we use it?

• Data isn’t meant to replace our knowledge, experience, insights, and intuitions.

• Data complements each of these, helping us avoid “blindspots” or generalizations that need a more sophisticated understanding.

• Data is best used as a source of information that leads to reflection. Numbers are numbers, but their meanings are determined through reflective analysis and thoughtful discussion.

How will we respond to the data we review today?

• As we approach each data source, consider your state of mind: what assumptions do you bring to the data? What predictions are you making?

• After reviewing sets of data, ask yourself:

– What important points seem to “pop out?”

– What are some of the patterns and trends that emerge?

– What seems to be surprising or unexpected?

• Then consider the information that’s missing? What other information should be gathered? In what directions do we need to examine the data in greater detail or from another perspective?

and remember…

As we examine the data, there are two tendencies that sometimes occur:

1) To focus on only the negative or the needs that are apparent and to ignore strengths and positive “assets” in the school.

2) To be offended or get defensive with data that points out needs, challenges, or concerns.

How has the overall enrollment changed across time?

297 289 288 299 295

331 342

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09

VHES: allstudents

2008-09 marks the highest enrollment level (previous high level was 329 in 1999)

What do we know about our students?

17 22 18

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003-04

2005-06

2007-08

% Not LowIncome% LowIncome

% LowIncome % Not LowIncome

2008-09

ENROLLMENT BY LOW INCOME AT VHES

20%

How does VHES’s level of economically disadvantaged students compare to the District and State?

18

44.8

36.6

0 20 40 60 80 100

% ofeconomically

disadvantagedstudents -

2007-08

WI

MMSD

VHES

This Year’s Enrollment by Low Income: MMSDSeptember, 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% Low Income

This Year’s Enrollment by Low Income: MMSDSeptember, 2008

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

% Low Income

Data on our students…

21 20 24

66 67 63

8 8 85 4 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2003-04

2005-06

2007-08

Hispanic

Afr-Am

White

Asian

Asian

White

African-American

Hispanic

2008-09

RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVERSITY AT VHES

63%

22%9%6%

How does VHES’s diversity of students compare to the District and State?

63

49

74

9

24

12

6

16

9

1

24

11

22

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

VHES

MMSD

WI

White

Afr-Amer

Hispanic

Asian

Native Am.

2007-08 School Year

How did VHES’s student needs compare to the District?2007-08

28

12

0 50 100

MMSDElementaryAvg.

VHES

8

18

0 50 100

ELL

MMSDElementaryAvg.

NMCS

Other data you may want to look at later:

• Mobility rates (whole school and disaggregated by student groups)

• Home factors – number of parents in household and highest education level

What do we know about how our students are engaged?

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08

VHES

MMSD ElementarySchools

ATTENDANCE RATES FOR ALL STUDENTS:

VHES AND MMSD ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

All student groups were above the 94% goal last year.

Another indicator of engagement:

• Behavior-related data: both suspension data and office referral data.

As we begin looking at measures of learning, we will begin with the SAGE Report Data.

- 16 Objectives met the 80% standard. - 7 Objectives were below 80%.

How have our student performed on the PLAA over time? How does this compare to the District average?

010

2030

4050

6070

8090

100

K-TRL06-07

K-TRL07-08

1-TRL06-07

1-TRL07-08

2-TRL06-07

2-TRL07-08

VHES

MMSD

How have our student performed on the PMA over time? How does this compare to the District average?

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1-PMA 06-07 1-PMA 07-08 2-PMA 06-07 2-PMA 07-08

VHES

MMSD

Adequate Yearly Progress

Reading Math

Starting Point 2001-02 61% 37%

2002-03 61% 37%

2003-04 61% 37%

Intermediate Goal 2004-05 67.5% 47.5%

(Begin new 3-8 tests) 2005-06 67.5% 47.5%

2006-07 67.5% 47.5%

Intermediate Goal 2007-08 74% 58%

2008-09 74% 58%

2009-10 74% 58%

Intermediate Goal 2010-11 80.5% 68.5%

Intermediate Goal 2011-12 87% 79%

Intermediate Goal 2012-13 93.5% 89.5%

Goal: All Proficient 2013-14 100% 100%

Annual Measurable Objectives

% P

rofi

cie

nt/

Ad

van

ced

When we consider the “high stakes” test for reading, how did our students perform? How do our Proficiency/Advanced levels compare to the District and State?

WKCE – Reading, 2007: Proficiency/Advanced %

Criteria that determines a school’s status (AYP):

Reading – 74%

3rd - 91.8%

4th - 84.6%

5th - 97.7%

When we consider the “high stakes” test for reading, how did our students perform? How do our Proficiency/Advanced levels compare to peer schools?

91.6 93.387.5

95.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Combined Grades (3-5) % Prof/Adv

VHES

Crestwood

Randall

Shorewood

WKCE – Reading, 2007: Proficiency/Advanced %

When we compare the students that we could instructionally impact (FAY) to Wisconsin schools with similar levels of economic disadvantage, how did we do in bringing our students up to proficiency in reading?

When we compare the students that we could instructionally impact (FAY) to Dane County schools with similar levels of economic disadvantage, how did we do in bringing our students up to proficiency in reading?

Looking at the Six-Trait Writing Sample results, how have our third graders performed over time?

Looking at the Six-Trait Writing Sample results, how did our third graders compare to the district average?

Looking at the Six-Trait Writing Sample results, how have our fifth graders performed over time?

Looking at the Six-Trait Writing Sample results, how did our fifth graders compare to the district average?

When we consider the “high stakes” test for mathematics, how did our students perform? How do our Proficiency/Advanced levels compare to the District and State?

90.1

71.7 74.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

All Grades (3-5) % Prof/Adv

VHES

MMSD

WI

WKCE - Mathematics, 2007: Proficiency/Advanced %

Criteria that determines a school’s status (AYP):

Math – 58%

When we consider the “high stakes” test for mathematics, how did our students perform? How do our Proficiency/Advanced levels compare to peer schools?

90.1 89.783.8

96.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Combined Grades (3-5) % Prof/Adv

VHES

Crestwood

Randall

Shorewood

WKCE – Math, 2007: Proficiency/Advanced %

When we compare the students that we could instructionally impact (FAY) to Wisconsin schools with similar levels of economic disadvantage, how did we do in bringing our students up to proficiency in math?

When we compare the students that we could instructionally impact (FAY) to Dane County schools with similar levels of economic disadvantage, how did we do in bringing our students up to proficiency in math?

Improvement-based school performance measures

Value added measures

• Extra WKCE points gained by students at a school on average relative to observably similar students across district

• Value added of +3 means students gained 3 points more than the district average

• Value added of -3 means students gained 3 points less than the district average

Understanding VA Data

• Average student gain on WKCE relative to district average, with adjustments for:– Shape of the test score scale– Gender, race, disability, low-income status,

language, parents’ education– Mid-year (November) testing– Patterns in gains from one year to the next

Reading Value Added, Elementary Schools

-10 -5 0 5 10

AllisCesar Chavez

CrestwoodElvehjemEmerson

FalkGlendaleGompers

HawthorneHuegel

KennedyLake View

LeopoldLincoln

LindberghLowell

MarquetteMendota

MuirOrchard Ridge

RandallSandburg

SchenkShorewood Hills

StephensThoreauVan Hise

Math Value Added, Elementary Schools

-10 -5 0 5 10

AllisCesar Chavez

CrestwoodElvehjemEmerson

FalkGlendaleGompers

HawthorneHuegel

KennedyLake View

LeopoldLincoln

LindberghLowell

MarquetteMendota

MuirOrchard Ridge

RandallSandburg

SchenkShorewood Hills

StephensThoreauVan Hise

Value Added and Proficiency

High Proficiency

And

High Value Added

High Proficiency

And

Low Value Added

Low Proficiency

And

High Value Added

Low Proficiency

And

Low Value Added

Other assessments to look at in the future:

• Science and Social Studies Test Results (WKCE, Grade 4)

• Other report card information

• Six-Trait Writing Results

NMCS’s Special Education Information includes:

• Placement/Referral Data

• “Risk Factor” Ratio

• Least Restrictive Environment

When it comes to measurements of relationships…

School Climate Survey

• Responses from all students (grades 3-5), parents, and all staff.

• Comparisons to District, to previous year, and internally between demographic groups.