Hosted by: Colorado Department of Education
Provided by : Center for Transforming Learning and
Teaching

Center for Transforming
Learning and Teaching
Julie OxenfordO’Brian
Mary Beth Romke
Colorado Department of
Education
Bill Bonk
Judy Huddleston
Erin Loften
Lisa Medler
Somoh Supharukchinda

• Assumptions
– Participants are familiar with data analysis for UIP.
– Participants need information about updates and revisions.
– Materials should be immediately usable with local audiences.
• What does participation look like?
– Learning about what has been revised.
– Planning for bringing this content back to your district
(Planning to Build Data Analysis Capacity).

Share:
– Name, Job Title, School/District
– Your role in facilitating unified improvement planning
– Your most important outcome for this session

The materials used during this session were developed in partnership with the Center for Transforming
Learning and Teaching in the School of Education and Human
Development at the University of
Colorado Denver.

Engage in handson learning activities and dialogue with colleagues.
Access additional resources.
• Explain how and why data analysis, as part of Unified
Improvement Planning, has changed.
• Explain the role and identify critical components of the data narrative .
• Appropriately identify school accountability status and where performance did not meet expectations.
• Describe the magnitude of the school performance challenge.
• Analyze state performance measures and metrics, including: frequently misinterpreted metrics, new metrics, and new required reports.
• Describe how to identify “notable” performance trends.
• Identify priority performance challenges consistent with the magnitude of the school’s overall performance challenge.
• Learn from other districts’ experiences in building local data analysis capacity.
• Plan local data analysis capacity building.

Data Analysis
Revisions
Agenda
Interpreting
Metrics
Reviewing
Current
Performance
Identifying
Notable
Trends
Prioritizing
Performance
Challenges
Planning
Local Capacity
Building

• Clarification regarding the role of the Data
Narrative
• Two additional metrics on the SPF/DPF and UIP Template
• Removal of AYP and Educator
Qualification from UIP Template
• Additional required reports in the UIP

• Colorado’s successful waiver from certain
ESEA provisions
• Lessons learned through 2012 CDE staff review of Turnaround/Priority Improvement
UIPs
• District UIP Needs Assessment Survey

• Turn to: Sources of Revision to Data
Analysis (p. 3)
• Work with a partner to:
– Identify the most important revisions related to data analysis.
– Identify questions/concerns you have about the revisions.

1. Description of the school/district
2. UIP process and who participated
3. The school/district accountability status (where expectations were NOT at least met) and the magnitude of school/district performance challenges over-all
4. How current performance compares to targets
5. Notable performance trends
6. Priority performance challenges
7. Root cause(s)

• Consider the UIP Handbook, Data Narrative (p.
10), and Quality Criteria (p. 38)and Data
Narrative Outline (Toolkit, p. 7)
• Work with a partner to clarify what should be included in each component of the data narrative (Capture notes on the Data Narrative
Notecatcher.)

• Working with a partner, use your notes in the Data
Narrative Outline (Toolkit, p. 7)
• Take out the data narrative from a school plan from your district to use as an example (or use the narrative from
Example Middle School)
• In the example data narrative:
• Underline/highlight each component of the data narrative that is included.
• Note any missing components.
• With your table, identify themes in missing components

Brieter & Light, Light, Wexlar, Heinze, 2004

• Turn to Planning to Build Local Data
Analysis Capacity (Toolkit, p. 35)
• Make notes about how you will help local stakeholders understand the role and key components of the data narrative:
– What will you do?
– With whom? When?
– What tools will you use?

Data Analysis
Revisions
Agenda
Interpreting
Metrics
Reviewing
Current
Performance
Identifying
Notable
Trends
Prioritizing
Performance
Challenges
Planning
Local Capacity
Building

1. Correcting Misconceptions
2. Analyzing and interpreting new metrics
3. Analyzing and interpreting data presented in required reports

Correcting
Misconceptions
• Catch-up/Keep-Up Growth
• Adequate Growth Percentiles
• Growth Gaps
Interpreting New
Metrics
• Growth in English Language Proficiency
(CELApro growth)
• Disaggregated Graduation Rates
Interpreting
Required
Reports
• Equitable Distribution of Teachers
• Disaggregated Achievement

Percentiles
• Range from 1 - 99
• Indicate the relative standing of a student’s score to the norm group (i.e. how a particular compares with all others).
Growth Percentiles
• Indicate a student’s standing relative to their academic peers , or students with a similar score history
(how his/her recent change in scores compares to others’ change in scores).

• Capture your “elevator speech” about what a student growth percentile is on an index card.
– Define academic peers.
– Explain how this is different from achievement.
• Find someone you haven’t talked with today.
– Share elevator speeches.
– Capture new ideas you heard from your partner.

• Student Growth Percentiles
– Normative
– Compare student progress to that of their academic peers
• Adequate growth/Catch-up, Keep-up, Moveup
– Growth to standard
– Compare student growth to how much growth they need to reach or stay proficient

• What is adequate growth?
• Based on catch-up and keep-up growth
• Set targets on catch-up and keep-up growth
• So. . . a quick refresher on catch-up and keep-up growth

To be eligible to make catch-up growth:
• The student scores below proficient
(unsatisfactory or partially proficient) in the previous year.
To make catch-up growth:
• The student demonstrates growth adequate to reach proficient performance within the next three years or by tenth grade, whichever comes first.

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
P r o f i c i e n t
95
2011
55
2012
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
P r o f i c i e n t
2011
85
85
2012
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
80
2012
P r o f i c i e n t
80
80
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2012 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
P r o f i c i e n t
2011
76
2012
76
76
76 N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
95
85
80
76
2012
85
80
P r o f i c i e n t
76 is the minimumthis student’s adequate growth percentile.
80
76
76
76 N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

• For students eligible to make catch-up growth
(those who scored unsatisfactory or partially proficient in the previous year).
• Adequate Growth Percentile = the minimum growth percentile he/she would have needed to make catch-up growth.

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
76
2012
P r o f i c i e n t
76
76
76
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

6 th grade 7 th grade 8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade
55 th percentile growth will not be enough for this student to catch up – she did not make catch-up growth.
76
55
P r o f i c i e n t
76
76
76
55
55
55 N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

To be eligible to make Keep-Up growth:
• The student scores at the proficient or advanced level in the previous year.
To make keep-up growth:
• The student demonstrates growth adequate to maintain proficiency for the next three years or until tenth grade, whichever comes first.

6 th grade 7 th grade 8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade
79 P r o f i c i e n t
12
2011 2012
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
25
25
P r o f i c i e n t
2012
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
38
2012
38
P r o f i c i e n t
38
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
50
2012
50
P r o f i c i e n t
50
50
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
50
25
12
2012
25
P r o f i c i e n t
50 is the maximum this student’s adequate growth percentile
50
38
50
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

• For students eligible to make keep-up growth
(those who scored proficient or advanced in the previous year).
• Adequate Growth Percentile = the maximum of the growth percentiles needed for each of the next three years (or until 10 th grade) he/she needed to score at least proficient for the next three years.

8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade 6 th grade 7 th grade
2011
50
2012
50
P r o f i c i e n t
50
50
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2013 2014 2015

6 th grade 7 th grade 8 th grade 9 th grade 10 th grade
79
50
50
79
79
79
P r o f i c i e n t
50
50
79 th percentile growth will be enough for this student to keep up – he made keepup growth.
N o t P r o f i c i e n t
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Median AGP
91
55
67
43
10
AGP
45
78
99
32
11
Adequate growth percentiles for all catch-up and keepup students
77
Sorted AGPs
Search for the middle value…
Median Adequate
Growth for this school is 55

To be eligible to make Move-Up growth:
• The student scores at the proficient level in the previous year.
To make move-up growth:
• The student demonstrates enough growth to move up to advanced within the next three years or by 10 th grade; whichever comes first.

●
●
• Check your understanding. . .
– Which students could make catch-up growth?
– Which students could make keep-up growth?
– Which students could make move-up growth?
• Draw a Venn diagram to show if/how these groups overlap.

●
●
Eligible to make
Catch-Up
Growth
Eligible to make
Keep-Up Growth
Eligible to make Move-
Up Growth

• Denominator: The number of students who scored below proficient (unsatisfactory or partially proficient) in the previous year (i.e. students eligible for catch-up growth).
• Numerator: The number of students who made catch-up growth (i.e. demonstrated enough growth to reach proficient performance within the next three years or by tenth grade, whichever comes first).
• Performance is improving if:
– The denominator is getting smaller (approaching zero)
– The numerator is increasing
– The percent is increasing(approaching 100)

• Denominator: The number of students who scored proficient or advanced in the previous year (i.e. students eligible to make keep-up growth).
• Numerator: The number of students who made keep-up growth (i.e. demonstrated enough growth to maintain proficiency for the next three years or until tenth grade, whichever comes first).
• Performance is improving if:
– The numerator is increasing
– The percent is increasing (approaching 100)

• Denominator: The number of students who scored proficient in the previous year (i.e. students eligible to make move-up growth).
• Numerator: The number of students who made move-up growth (i.e. demonstrated enough growth to move up to advanced within the next three years or by tenth grade, whichever comes first).
• Performance is improving if:
– The numerator is increasing (approaching 100)

●
●
Does the sum of these percentages add up to
100?
• The percent of students making catch-up growth
• The percent of students making keep-up growth
• The percent of students making move-up growth

• School or District Growth Summary Reports:
– The percent of students in the school/district making catch-up growth
– Number of students making catch-up growth/ the number of students eligible to make catch-up growth
• SPF or DPF
– For students eligible to make catch-up growth
– Median Growth Percentile
– Median Adequate Growth Percentile

• Take out: Interpreting the School Growth Summary Report , the School Growth Summary Report for Example Middle
School, and the SPF for Example Middle School
• Work in a triad to answer the questions on the Interpreting
School Growth Summary Reports chart.
• Consider: How could you use this activity to clarify common misconceptions about Academic Growth Metrics?
• Make notes in Planning to Build Data Analysis Capacity

• Consider the definition of “Academic Growth
Gaps” in the UIP Handbook Glossary (p. 27)
• Talk with a partner:
– Is this definition consistent with the interpretation of “growth gaps” used in your district?
– If not, how is it different?
– How could trends in growth gaps be described using this defintion? What data is needed?

• Used in conjunction with median growth percentiles over time for disaggregated groups (School Growth Summary Report) to describe growth gap trends.
• Accessed through:
– www.schoolview.org
, data lab ( see job aide )
– SPF reports over time.

• Take out: Example Middle School Reports
(School Growth Summary, Adequate Growth
Percentiles Over Time)
• Work in triads:
– Identify at least 3 trends in Academic Growth
Gaps for this school.

• Turn to Planning to Build Local Data Analysis
Capacity (Toolkit, p. 35)
• Make notes about how you will help local stakeholders correct misconceptions about adequate growth, catch-up/keep-up/move-up growth and growth gaps:
– What will you do?
– With whom? When?
– What tools will you use?

Correcting
Misconceptions
• Catch-up/Keep-Up Growth
• Adequate Growth Percentiles
• Growth Gaps
New Metrics
• Growth in English Language Proficiency
(CELApro growth)
• Disaggregated Graduation Rates
Interpreting
Required
Reports
• Equitable Distribution of Teachers
• Disaggregated Achievement

• English Language Proficiency
– Academic Growth (English Language)
– The Colorado Growth Model applied to CELApro
– Median Growth Percentile (CELApro)
– Median Adequate Growth Percentile
• Disaggregated Graduation Rates
– Postsecondary and Workforce Readiness
– 4,5,6,7 year Graduation Rates
– Disaggregated groups: Minority, FRL, ELL, IEP

• There are 5 proficiency levels identified for CELApro
– Level 1- lowest level
– Level 5- considered proficient in English
• CELApro proficiency levels do not measure
– how much growth each student has made
– how much growth is necessary to get to level 5 in a reasonable amount of time

• Using CELApro as the measure (instead of TCAP/CSAP)
• Applies the Colorado Growth Model methodology to
CELApro results
• Reported only for schools/districts with 20 or more
ELLs
• Measure of how much normative growth a student has made towards attaining English proficiency, over time
• Indicates how much normative growth a student needs to attain English proficiency

• Take out the CELApro to CSAP/TCAP Growth
Metric Comparison table (Toolkit, p. 21).
• Work with a partner to answer these questions:
– How are these two applications of the Colorado
Growth Model similar?
– How are they different?
– How is adequate growth defined for CELApro?

Current
Proficiency Level
Desired
Proficiency Level
Time Line
1
2
3
4
2
3
4
5
1 year
1 year
2 years
2 years

Overall
CELA 1
CELA 2
CELA 3
CELA 4
CELA 5
CELApro Growth Summary: Elementary School
N
376
23
66
128
138
21
MGP
47
12
23
46
60
84
AGP
37
34
34.5
33
45
53

• Take out Interpreting CELApro Growth Metrics
Practice (Toolkit, p. 23)
• Work with a partner to answer the questions on the practice sheet.
• Which of these questions were difficult to answer?
• What additional questions do you now have about CELApro Growth?

• Districts can download reports via CEDAR (by June).
– Student-level files: all students, enrolled in a school/district at time of testing, who had a score anywhere in Colorado the prior year
– School, district, state-level summary files: Title III
Contacts, ELL Coordinators, District Assessment
Coordinators, and District Accountability Contacts
• For last year’s, e-mail pearson_a@cde.state.co.us
or follow instructions at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/cela/cela_growth.html
• Will include MGPs and AGPs
• FAQs are available at: http://www.cde.state.co.us/assessment/CELA-Growth_FAQ.asp

Consider the definition of Graduation Rate in the UIP
Handbook, Appendix A: Planning Terminology (p. 28) and the SPF Scoring Guides and Reference Data
(Toolkit, p. 15)
• How are 4,5,6,7 year graduation rates calculated?
• Which disaggregated groups are included in the
SPF/DPF disaggregated graduation rates?
• What disaggregated graduation rate meets expectations?

4-year 5- year 6- year 7-year
Number of students graduating in 4 years
4-year rate 5-year rate 6-year rate
+ number of students from the base year who graduated early
+ number of students graduating in 5 years
+ number of students graduating in
6 years
+ number of students graduating in 7 years
Number of students in 9 th grade in the base year
+ Transfers in
- Transfers out

• Turn to Planning to Build Local Data Analysis
Capacity
• Make notes about how you will help local stakeholders access, analyze and interpret
CELApro Growth and Disaggregated
Graduation Rates:
– What will you do?
– With whom? When?
– What tools will you use?

Correcting
Misconceptions
• Catch-up/Keep-Up Growth
• Adequate Growth Percentiles
• Growth Gaps
New Metrics
• Growth in English Language Proficiency
(CELApro growth)
• Disaggregated Graduation Rates
Interpreting
Required
Reports
• Equitable Distribution of Teachers
• Disaggregated Achievement

• All districts expected to update
Equitable Distribution of
Teachers analysis through consolidated application.
Moving to UIP now
NCLB Teacher Gap Analysis In Colorado
According to NCLB, the state is required to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers at higher rates than their white or more affluent peers. This report is for informational purposes and indicates that your district has a teacher gap (as measured by the percent of classrooms taught by a highly qualified teacher or the average years of teaching experience) in relation to the state average, between low and high poverty schools and/or low and high minority schools.
District Name
LAMAR RE-2
• CDE would prepare reports for districts with higher gaps.
All required data is now available on
SchoolView.org.
Highly Qualified Data Gap
All schools in the state w ere divided into four quartiles- the 1st quartile being the schools w ith the low est percentage of students eligible for free or reduced lunch, and the 4th being the highest. Districts may not have schools in each of the quartiles depending on the district's size and demographics.
4 (High Poverty)
3
2
Poverty
NA
1 (Low Poverty) NA
Percent of teachers HQ
District State
100.00%
81.40%
96.98%
97.58%
97.97%
98.02%
Poverty
Gap between 1 (low) and 4 (high) NA
Gap between 1 (low) and 3
Gap between 2 and 4 (high)
NA
NA
HQ equity gap
District State
1.05%
0.44%
0.99%
All schools in the state w ere divided into four quartiles- the 1st quartile being the schools w ith the low est percentage of non-w hite students, and the 4th being the highest. Districts may not have schools in each of the quartiles depending on the district's size and demographics.
3
2
Minority
4 (High Minority)
1 (Low Minority) NA
Percent of teachers HQ
District State
100.00%
100.00%
81.40%
97.11%
97.77%
98.13%
97.67%
Minority
Gap between 1 (low) and 4 (high) NA
Gap between 1 (low) and 3
Gap between 2 and 4 (high)
NA
HQ equity gap
District
-18.60%
State
0.56%
-0.10%
1.02%
Highlighted fields indicate a gap larger than the state average
Highlighted fields indicates a gap greater than 2%.
Teacher Experience Data Gap
Teacher experience data reflects the percent of teachers w ho have been teaching for less than 3 years. This is the same data reported in the
School Accountability Reports.
Poverty
4 (High Poverty)
3
2 NA
1 (Low Poverty) NA
Percent of teachers with less than 3 years of experience
District
19.09%
0.00%
State
29.30%
24.36%
20.17%
19.97%
Poverty
Percent of teachers with less than 3 years of experience
District State
-9.33% Gap between 1 (low) and 4 (high) NA
Gap between 1 (low) and 3
Gap between 2 and 4 (high)
NA
NA
-4.39%
-9.13%
Minority
Percent of teachers with less than 3 years of experience
4 (High Minority)
3
2
1 (Low Minority) NA
District
14.29%
19.79%
0.00%
State
30.15%
22.22%
19.07%
21.03%
Minority
Percent of teachers with less than 3 years of experience
District
Gap between 1 (low) and 4 (high) NA
Gap between 1 (low) and 3
Gap between 2 and 4 (high)
NA
-14.29%
State
-9.11%
-1.19%
-11.07%
Highlighted fields indicate a gap larger than the state average

ESEA Definition of Equitable Distribution of
Teachers
ESEA requires that LEAs “ensure…that low-income students and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers.”
(NCLB, Sec 1112(c)(1)(L))

Colorado’s Approach to EDT
Limitations
Required Metrics
• Highly qualified requirements largely attained (no real gaps)
• Biased against novice teachers
• Performance neutral
Ease of Analysis
• Many variables to consider at once. It is confusing.
• Isolated analysis leads to little action.
Colorado’s Enhancements
• Add SPF overall growth rating for performance measure
• Interactive quadrant display in
SchoolView.
• Inclusion in UIP to provide relevance with improvement planning.

1
2
SchoolView: Understanding the EDT Graph
3
5
4
6
1
The y-axis represents percentage of novice teachers, those less than three years of total teaching experience.
2 The horizontal blue line represents the state’s mean percentage of notice teachers.
3 The red line represents the average percentage of novice teachers within your district.
4
The x-axis represents percentage of free and reduced lunch students, a proxy for poverty.
5 The vertical red line represents the top quartile for poverty for secondary schools.
6 The dots represent schools.
The colors represent the overall growth rating on SPF.

Schools within this quadrant have a
high percentage of novice teachers and are serving a
lower percentage of FRL students.
4
Understanding Each Quadrant
1
Schools within this quadrant have a
high percentage of novice teachers and are serving a
high percentage of
FRL students. The graph focuses attention on this quadrant.
Schools within this quadrant have a
low percentage of novice teachers and are serving a
lower percentage of FRL students.
3
2 Schools within this quadrant have a
low percentage of novice teachers and are serving a
high percentage of
FRL students.

• Turn to: Interpreting Equitable Distribution of
Teachers Data Practice (Toolkit, p. 25)
• The first two pages are a reminder about how to interpret this data.
• Work with a partner to complete the Practice questions.
• The graphic will be on the next slide (in color), so wait for it 

• The EDT analysis is still required, but may not always be as enlightening as for larger districts.
• Look at the distribution by school level.
• Compare average years of staff experience to the state.

• Update of EDT analysis included in UIP Data
Narrative each year.
• If no problems, just provide a brief summary to indicate that it was considered.
• If problems are identified, include
– Detail in data narrative
– Provide strategies that will address the issue (e.g., using Title IIA funds to strengthen induction program)

• Turn to Planning to Build Local Data Analysis
Capacity (Toolkit, p. 35)
• Make notes about how you will help local stakeholders access, analyze and interpret
Equitable Distribution of Teachers data:
– What will you do?
– With whom? When?
– What tools will you use?

Data Analysis
Revisions
Interpreting
Metrics
Reviewing
Current
Performance
Identifying
Notable
Trends
Prioritizing
Performance
Challenges
Planning
Local Capacity
Building

1. Use the SPF to identify and describe:
– School or District accountability status
– Indicators (and sub-indicators) where performance did not at least meet state/federal expectations
– Magnitude of the over-all school/district performance challenge.
2. Describe how current performance compares to the prior year’s plan (using the Progress
Monitoring of Prior Year’s Performance Targets
Worksheet)

1. Answer the following questions for Example Middle
School
– What was this school’s state accountability status?
– In which indicator areas did this school not at least meet state expectations?
– In which sub-indicators did this school not at least meet state expectations?
2. Use the Data Narrative Note catcher Example to capture this information for Example Middle School

• Schools must identify priority performance challenges and root causes that “reflect the magnitude” of the school’s overall performance challenge.
• What does this mean?
• How will planning teams know?

• All students or around 15% of students (RTI)
• Disaggregated groups of students? Which ones?
• All content areas, one or two content areas?
Which ones.
• The magnitude reflects all of these factors.

• Consider: Identifying the Magnitude Practice , Example
SPFs (example middle school + 2 others)
• Work with a triad to:
– Answer the questions on the practice sheet for each school.
– Summarize the magnitude of the performance challenge for each school.
• Find another triad and compare how you summarized the magnitude of the performance challenges for each school.

• Enter the schools annual performance targets for last year in the Progress Monitoring of Prior Year’s
Performance Targets Worksheet .
• Consider the end-of-year performance results. Were the annual targets met?
• If yes:
– Is this worth celebration? Was the target(s) rigorous enough?
– How does this correlate with our improvement efforts?
• If No: Should this be a priority for the current year?

Data Analysis
Revisions
Agenda
Interpreting
Metrics
Reviewing
Current
Performance
Identifying
Notable
Trends
Prioritizing
Performance
Challenges
Planning
Local Capacity
Building

• Review
– Step Three: Identify Notable Trends
UIP Handbook, p. 12
– UIP Quality Criteria, Section III, Trends.
• Discuss:
– What are the most critical things to remember about performance trends?
– How can we determine if a trend is notable?
– What are some examples of “notable” performance trends?

• Include all performance indicator areas.
• Include at least three years of data.
• Consider data beyond that included in the school performance framework (grade-level data).
• Include positive and negative performance patterns.
• Identify where the school did not at least meet state and federal expectations.
• Include information about what makes the trend notable.

• Measure/Metric
• Content Area
• Which students (grade-levels, disaggregated groups)
• Direction
• Amount
• Time period
• What makes the trend notable

• In comparison to what . ..
• Criterion-based: How did we compare to a specific expectation?
– Minimum state expectations
– Median adequate growth percentiles
• Normative: How did we compare to others?
– District or state trends for the same metric over the same time period.
– For disaggregated groups, to the school over-all
– By standard to the content area over-all

• The percent of 4 th grade students who scored proficient or advanced on math TCAP/CSAP declined from 70% to
55% to 48% between 2009 and 2011 dropping well below the minimum state expectation of 71%.
• The median growth percentile of English Language learners in writing increased from 28 to 35 to 45 between
2009 and 2011,meeting the minimum expectation of 45 and exceeding the district trend over the same time period.
• The dropout rate has remained relatively stable (15, 14,
16) and much higher than the state average between
2009 and 2011.

Consider “Developing Trend Statements”
(template and examples)
1. Identify the measure/metrics.
2. Describe for which students (grade level and disaggregated group).
3. Describe the time period.
4. Describe the trend (e.g. increasing, decreasing, flat).
5. Identify for which performance indicator the trend applies.
6. Determine if the trend is notable and describe why.

• Take out: Developing Trend Statements
(examples and template) and Example Middle
School reports.
• Work with a partner to:
– Write notable trend statements for Example Middle
School for Academic Achievement, Academic Growth and Academic Growth Gaps.
– Consider how you could improve upon the trend statements that Example Middle School included in their 2012 UIP.
– Capture in the Developing Trend Statement Template

• Turn to Planning to Build Local Data
Analysis Capacity
• Make notes about how you will help local stakeholders identify notable trends and determine what makes trends notable:
– What will you do?
– With whom? When?
– What tools will you use?

Data Analysis
Revisions
Agenda
Interpreting
Metrics
Reviewing
Current
Performance
Identifying
Notable
Trends
Prioritizing
Performance
Challenges
Planning
Local Capacity
Building

• Review
– Step Four: Prioritize Performance Challenges in the
UIP Handbook, p. 14.
– UIP Quality Criteria, Section III, Priority Performance
Challenges.
• Discuss:
– What are the most critical things to remember about priority performance challenges? Why do we prioritize performance challenges?
– How do performance challenges relate to trends?
– How do priority performance challenges relate to the magnitude of the over-all school challenges?

1. Review where priorities must be identified and the magnitude of the performance challenge.
2. Consider all negative trends.
3. Focus the list, combining related trends.
4. Identify trends that are most urgent to act on.
5. Do a reality check.
6. Evaluate the degree to which the proposed priority performance challenges reflect the magnitude of the overall school/district performance challenge.
7. Achieve consensus on the top three or four priorities.

• Consider the trend statements you wrote for
Example Middle School.
• Do any of these trends address the same performance challenge (e.g. growth and achievement trends for the same students in the same content area)?
• Write one “combined” trend statement – that includes more than one metric for the same students.

• Read, “How to determine the appropriate level for a priority performance challenge”, (UIP
Handbook, p. 15-16)
• Work with a partner to:
– What does it mean to say the priority performance challenge is aligned to the magnitude of the overall performance challenges for the school?
– For School A and B (example SPFs), identify an example of a priority performance challenge that would not be aligned to the magnitude of the over-all performance challenge.

• Turn to Planning to Build Local Data
Analysis Capacity
• Make notes about how you will help local stakeholders prioritize performance challenges that combine similar trends and reflect the appropriate magnitude:
– What will you do?
– With whom? When?
– What tools will you use?

Review
UIP processes
Agenda
Review
Current
Performance
Identify
Performance
Trends
Prioritize
Performance
Challenges
Planning for data analysis

• Turn back to Planning to Build Local Data
Analysis Capacity to make any additional notes about your plans.
• Form a triad with two people from different districts with whom you have not worked today.
• Do a round robin, sharing the critical components of your plans for building local capacity.

• Written: Use sticky notes
– + the aspects of this session that you liked or worked for you.
–  The things you will change in your practice or that you would change about this session.
– ? Question that you still have or things we didn’t get to today.
– Ideas, ah-has, innovations.
• Oral: Share one ah-ha!